2013-10-16
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the senior students from Kormilda College, accompanied by Ailsa MacFie. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you here today and hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
ALCOHOL PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
(Serial 58)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. Alcohol is a major factor in many cases of criminal behaviour in the Territory, and this bill will add a strong new measure by providing police with the necessary powers to address criminal behaviour involving alcohol and deter family violence incidents involving offenders affected by alcohol.
The bill represents another tool in the fight against alcohol-related crime and violence. It also complements other pioneering changes the Northern Territory government has introduced in tackling alcohol abuse and crime, such as the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act and the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act. While some tools exist for the police to tackle alcohol-related crime, they are mostly focused on antisocial behaviour and public order offending.
This bill proposes new powers which provide police with a law enforcement tool to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime and provides for offences to deter future offending on an individual level. Approximately 60% of Northern Territory Police Force responses to offences against the person are alcohol-related or domestic violence related. Approximately 70% of domestic violence order breaches responded to are alcohol-related.
The bill provides for a series of alcohol protection orders issued to an adult charged with an alcohol-related offence. The bill will operate through voluntary and non-voluntary orders issued by a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above to an adult. The orders can last for three, six or 12 months and will prohibit that adult from consuming or possessing alcohol or entering licensed premises except for employment.
A breach of these conditions or failure to comply with a valid direction given by a police officer will be an offence. A person guilty of breaching an offence may be subject to penalties and, for those under a non-voluntary alcohol protection order, the penalty may be imprisonment.
If an authorised officer wants to issue an alcohol protection order, they must be satisfied the person is over 18 years of age and has been arrested, summonsed or served with a notice to appear in court for an offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of six month or more, and the person was affected by alcohol when they committed the alleged offence.
What is necessary is the adult has allegedly committed a relatively serious offence and alcohol was also involved. If those charges are subsequently withdrawn or dismissed, the person is found not guilty or not liable to be punished for any other reason and then the alcohol protection order will cease to be in force from that time.
The time limits for an alcohol protection order issued by an authorised officer are prescribed by the bill. In summary, there will be the ability to issue a three-, six-, or 12-month order, depending on the number of orders previously issued to the person and the amount of time that has passed between the issuing of orders to that adult.
A person may also choose to voluntarily apply for an order. In order to do so, the person must be capable of making the application and consenting to the terms, and they must be able to understand the consequences and penalties that apply to a breach of the order. The person applying for an order to be issued can request the order be in place for three, six or 12 months, and the officer may take this into account. If a person wants to remove this type of order they can do so in writing or in person at a police station, and it will be removed as soon as practicable.
The deterrent effect of the bill comes into effect through the powers it gives police to monitor and enforce the orders, and the ability to charge adults who contravene the order with an offence. A contravention means a person is consuming, possessing, or attempting to possess alcohol, entering or being on licensed premises, or intentionally contravening a direction given to the person by a police officer to submit to a breath test analysis.
The bill will give police powers to perform a breath test or a breath analysis on people who have been issued with an order and are believed to have consumed alcohol. Someone who has been issued an order and fails to follow a direction to submit to a breath test will contravene the order and be liable to criminal punishment.
The bill also gives police powers to search the adult and seize and dispose of any alcohol in their possession. Possession is defined in the bill using the definition found within the Criminal Code Act. This definition will capture those circumstances where alcohol may be in the actual physical possession of another person, but is being held for the person subject to the alcohol protection order. This ensures those people subject to an alcohol protection order cannot ask another person to hold alcohol on their behalf to avoid the consequences of breaching the order. The police must have a reasonable belief the person not subject to an alcohol protection order was holding the alcohol for the person subject to an order before they can either seize the alcohol or be satisfied the order has been contravened.
It is proposed that for someone who intentionally breaches an alcohol protection order which was issued on a non-voluntary basis, the punishment is a maximum of 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. The same maximum penalties exist for an adult who intentionally engages in conduct that results in a contravention of a direction under clause 18(1) which relates to breath testing and breath analysis. If the adult establishes a reasonable excuse as to why the breach occurred, they will have a defence against a prosecution for a contravention of an order or a direction.
It is proposed that for someone who intentionally breaches a voluntary order, the maximum penalty is five penalty units.
The bill also makes it an offence to supply alcohol to an adult where the person supplying it knows the adult has been issued with an alcohol protection order which is currently in force. The proposed maximum penalty for this offence is 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. This will again provide a strong deterrent against people supplying alcohol to those who abuse it. It will also make it more difficult to obtain alcohol for people issued with an order.
A person on bail may be subject to similar conditions in an alcohol protection order. However, an order will be able to be issued once a person is charged and the conditions and powers of police provided for under the proposed bill can be enforced from that point.
Because of the strong stance the bill takes aim against people abusing alcohol and then committing criminal behaviour, it also provides clear and accessible avenues of review regarding the issuing of an order. There are two stages to the process. First, an internal reconsideration by a senior police officer and, if the order is confirmed, a merits review of the senior officer’s decision in the local court. The order will remain in force throughout both review processes.
The time limit for applying to the court is 14 days from the senior officer’s notice. The court must review the merits of the decision. To make this decision the court may admit evidence not previously considered or refuse to admit evidence previously considered before confirming or setting aside the order. If the order is confirmed, it remains in force on the same terms, and if it is set aside it immediately ceases to have force.
The reconsideration and review process provides a safeguard against any incorrect order or orders being issued in the wrong circumstances. These processes help balance the powers of the bill and ensure an individual’s rights are protected. It also provides a clear and fair procedure by which people can request an order to be reconsidered.
The bill establishes information sharing arrangements for information which relates to an alcohol protection order currently in force. This will allow the Northern Territory Police Force, Territory government departments, and treatment organisations to communicate and administer the alcohol protection order efficiently. In particular, it will allow police to provide sufficient identifying information to licensed premises to assist them in identifying people subject to an alcohol protection order. This will, in turn, assist in cutting off the supply of alcohol to people who are subject to an alcohol protection order.
This bill will allow sharing authorities to provide better services to the individual, as well as efficiently enforce orders. There are safeguards in the bill to ensure the person’s information is adequately protected. This comes from limiting the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted. Information cannot be disclosed for a purpose other than the one it was provided for.
The miscellaneous provisions of the bill help to clarify certain issues that might arise in administering the bill. These include averments by a prosecutor in the proceedings for an offence under the bill in relation to licensed premises, whether a liquid is alcohol, and the date on which a particular order was issued.
Clause 26 of the bill concerns the acquisition of property on ‘just terms’ and mirrors section 42A of the Misuse of Drugs Act and section 128A of the Liquor Act. There are numerous High Court authorities regarding the application of this type of clause. Forfeiture of property due to illegal activity is an exception to the acquisition of property on just terms principle. This bill falls within the forfeiture exemption for acquisition of property on just terms; nevertheless, the provision has been included to ensure any potential invalidity, however unlikely, is addressed.
It is clear more action must be taken in the Territory to ensure we reduce crime and address the factors which lead to criminal and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol is clearly one of these factors. Gaps that exist in other schemes which are already operating have been specifically targeted by this bill through a concerted focus on the mix of criminal behaviour and alcohol on an individual level.
This bill will complement existing schemes such as the mandatory treatment scheme, and powers which already exist under the Police Administration Act and the Liquor Act. The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 represents the next step in a progressive and planned government intervention on alcohol abuse and serious criminal offending.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a mighty fine group of Year 7 children from Taminmin College, accompanied by Nelly Labiche, Penny Kellaway and Rhiannon Smith. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time and your visit here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Petroleum Amendment Bill is straightforward. In essence, the bill seeks to amendment the current Petroleum Act to provide for a more strategic and controlled release of vacant land and allow for the acceptance of multiple applications for exploration permits over that vacant land.
In summary, the bill amends the current act by creation of a new provision, ‘Advertisement of blocks for land release’, which will allow the advertisement of vacant land not under a petroleum permit application or permit to be available for application and the time period in which applications must be lodged for that land. Therefore, amendments will also allow for the receipt of more than one permit application over the advertised land.
As with most amending bills, other amendments were made by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to give effect to the above matters. If adopted, this bill will facilitate a more strategic and controlled release of vacant land, allow for the acceptance of multiple applications over vacant land, provide a more competitive market in applying for that vacant land, and allow government to select the most meritorious applications for consideration of grant.
Further, the bill will bring the Northern Territory closer in line with Commonwealth and neighbouring jurisdictions’ legislative processes to assist international and Australian industry operators in reducing regulatory red tape with their cross-jurisdictional activities.
It is important to point out there has been no significant amendment to the Territory’s petroleum legislation since 1982 that has the potential to attract greater exploration expertise and interest in the Territory than these amendments. With the oil and gas exploration industry on the cusp of major gas discoveries in the Northern Territory, it is now timely and appropriate for the Territory to remain competitive and contemporary in the administration of vacant land and grant of exploration tenure.
Prior to finalisation of this bill, the Department of Mines and Energy discussed proposed amendments with industry representatives and industry associations with the overall response being positive, which justifies the amendments and the timing of the amendments.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Since being elected in August 2012, the Northern Territory government has endeavoured to make the Territory’s child protection system more child focused. It is appropriate that the Legislative Assembly is able to consider this bill so close to Children’s Week, a national initiative intended to focus the attention of decision makers on children and young people. This bill shares the goals of that week.
The amendment bill provides two key reforms. I will turn first to that of the child’s independent legal representative.
The provision of an independent legal representative to the child is a realisation of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:
When a magistrate sitting in the Family Matters Court considers an application for a protection order the court is, in all likelihood, making one of the biggest decisions that will ever impact on the child. In many cases, that decision will change the course of that child’s life irrevocably. That decision should permanently and irrevocably alter the child’s relationships, family connections and even the child’s own sense of identity and self. The importance of that decision to the child cannot be overstated.
For that reason it is fundamental and an expectation of the community that, wherever possible, the child’s voice is heard through the provision of an independent legal representative who then, appropriately and professionally, advocates on behalf of the child. The role of the child legal representative as articulated in the Care and Protection of Children Act has been the cause of much uncertainty. It is interesting that despite sharing the same legislation, the understanding of the role has differed greatly in Alice Springs and Darwin. This confusion was highlighted in the 2010 board of inquiry, Growing them strong, together report, although the report made no recommendation on the matter. It was also the burning issue for many legal stakeholders during the review of the act undertaken by the Department of Children and Families in 2012.
The need to clarify the role was further highlighted by two Supreme Court decisions in late 2012, one of which is an appeal that was allowed on the grounds the magistrate had failed to take into account the most relevant of considerations, the views of the child, because the child’s legal representative had failed to ascertain and properly communicate those views.
Currently, a child is appointed a legal representative. That representative advocates according to what is known as the best interests model regardless of any instructions from the child. Effectively, they are a friend of the court appointed to advocate on the basis of what the representative considers to be the child’s best interests as well as presenting the child’s view and wishes. There is no solicitor client relationship with the child. The child could not dismiss their representative if they felt they were not being represented properly.
If a child, even a young person aged 16 or 17, wanted to oppose an application for a protection order the representative would only have to inform the court the child does not want the order to be made and could then argue the proposed order is, nevertheless, in the child’s best interests.
As Justice Kelly stated in one of the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions in which the child’s representative had failed to relay the child’s views and wishes:
The child’s best interests are also the primary concern for the person making the application for the order, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families. This amendment clarifies the role and the circumstances in which a representative should be appointed, namely only when a child has a level of maturity or understanding such that their views and wishes can appropriately be conveyed to a court for consideration. As Justice Kelly noted:
The child’s representative will cease representation of the child once the appeal period passes and an order is made. The child legal representative’s role is entirely tied up with representing the child in court. It is not the legal representative’s job to advocate on the child’s behalf should they enter care, nor is it their role to monitor the Department of Children and Families.
If another protection order is proposed for the child in the future, or an application is made to vary or revoke the existing order, that would be a separate proceeding and the court would again be required to consider whether a child representative should be appointed for the new matter. It may or may not be the same practitioner who previously represented the child.
This amendment also changes the model to one of direct representation for children who have maturity and understanding to provide instruction to their lawyer. A legal representative of a child who has maturity and understanding to provide instructions must act on those instructions. Children aged 10 and over will be presumed to be capable of providing instructions, although that presumption can be rebutted. This has been the generally preferred model of Australian child protection jurisdictions since the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process report was published in 1997. That report stated quote:
Further to the child legal representative reforms, the bill adds a new power to investigate allegations of abuse in care. Although it is already within the power of the Department of Children and Families to make inquiries in relation to children in care, just as it is for any other child, an allegation of abuse in care is, in fact, a very different set of circumstances and warrants a separate provision.
In a typical child protection investigation, the Department of Children and Families will investigate the alleged failure of a parent to act protectively for a child with a view to determining whether the Department of Children and Families should intervene. When the Department of Children and Families investigates an allegation of abuse in care, it is investigating its own alleged failure to act protectively for a child, with a view to determining whether any changes need to be made in relation to the child’s care.
It is, therefore, appropriate this function be found in a separate part of the act to the standard investigation function. This will also allow the power to be delegated to a limited number of caseworkers so the investigation can occur independently of the office responsible for the case. It will also have an added requirement that any substantiation of harm of a child in care must be reported to the Children’s Commissioner as soon as practicable.
The bill makes further amendments of a mostly administrative nature. Most significantly, it clarifies the provision which allows authorised officers to search children for weapons or harmful substances when an officer reasonably believes doing so is necessary to prevent the child from being harmed or harming others.
The previous provision was unnecessarily convoluted and awkward to operationalise to the detriment of children at risk of harm. The requirement that the officer conducting the search be the same gender as the child will remain.
In light of the 2012 Youth Justice Court decision in Mosel v DT, the bill also amends the power of authorised officers to enter a place with a view to apprehending a child so it is clear the power can be exercised in a public place, and an officer need not first enter a place before that power can be exercised.
As members of the House well know, the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia has many adults who purport to speak for the Territory’s children and young people, and who advocate according to what they perceive to be the best interests of children. The government shares that desire to improve the wellbeing of the Territory’s children and young people. However, too often the voices of the individual children are lost amongst the much louder voices of the adults. The reform in this bill will further empower children so their voices are better heard and are responded to in both a court setting and out-of-home care.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory notes.
Debate adjourned.
CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER BILL
(Serial 52)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to the goal of a truly transparent child protection system that is accountable and subject to ongoing review and scrutiny. Honourable members would recall this sentiment consistently expressed to this parliament by government members. It is with this commitment in mind that, having completed a review of the Care and Protection of Children Act, one of the first legislative acts of the Country Liberals government with respect to child protection is one which permanently embeds improved oversight and increased accountability through the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
This bill is the product of a collaborative process undertaken by staff from the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, and the Children’s Commissioner. This bill will separate the Children’s Commissioner from the Care and Protection of Children Act and establish a stand-alone Children’s Commissioner’s Act. This will better reflect the independence of the office and the fact the Children’s Commissioner has investigation powers for systems other than that of child protection.
Whereas previously the Children’s Commissioner would share the principles of the child protection system in the Care and Protection of Children Act, transferring the Children’s Commissioner to a stand-alone act creates an opportunity for the construction of specific underlying principles more suited to the Children’s Commissioner’s role. The principles have been arrived at in close collaboration with the Children’s Commissioner.
Before I detail the principles to the House in full, I note that consistent with the oath of office the Children’s Commissioner must take, the principles do not alter the Children’s Commissioner’s obligation to discharge his or her powers and functions impartially.
Consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of children should be the paramount concern for any person exercising a power or performing a function under the Children’s Commissioner Act. Further, children in the Northern Territory are entitled to:
live in a caring and a nurturing environment in which they are protected from harm and exploitation and able to reach their full potential
be treated in a way that respects their dignity and privacy
express their concerns and grievances and to have them dealt with in a fair and timely way.
Finally, and consistent with this government’s priority and other related amendments intended to better focus the child protection system back onto the children and young people, the views of children and all matters affecting them should be given serious consideration and taken into account.
It is essential the business of child protection and the provision of child-related services be informed by best practice and guided by intellectual honesty, not political ideology. It is therefore appropriate that the following has been included as an explicit function of the Children’s Commissioner’s new act, and I quote:
As I mentioned earlier, the Care and Protection of Children Act provides the legislative framework of the child protection system.
This bill will give the Children’s Commissioner a new task of evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of that act as far as it relates to vulnerable children. This will ensure the act is providing value for money in the provision of public service and being responsive to the children and families the Department of Children and Families exists to serve. Reviews of the act must occur at least every three years and each will result in a report that must be tabled in parliament.
The Children’s Commissioner already has the power to conduct investigations, both upon receiving a complaint from a child or a person speaking for the child, or on the Children’s Commissioner’s own motion. This bill amends that power so the Children’s Commissioner may informally resolve complaints when it is appropriate to do so. This will allow for an expeditious resolution of complaints, which is particularly appropriate given that many complainants are children. It will also result in efficiencies for the Children’s Commissioner and the child-related services being investigated, as they will not need to proceed to a comprehensive investigation unless the circumstances warrant it.
While the investigation function is concerned with the experience of individual children, the new inquiry function will assist in identifying persistent or recurring systemic issues.
It will be a requirement that the reports of any such inquiry be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. However, the Children’s Commissioner will be able to waive that requirement if he or she considers it to be in the public interest. In order to maintain the privacy of individuals concerned, the Children’s Commissioner will also be able to direct that parts of the report be de-identified. These reports will assist to improve services and to promote a culture of continuous reflection, innovation and improvement in the Department of Children and Families and other service providers involved in the care and protection of children.
This bill will ensure the Northern Territory’s child protection system is more accountable than it has ever been. The Children’s Commissioner’s act provides accountability and oversight at every conceivable level for the individual through investigations, the systemic via enquiries and the broader discussion of ideas through the explicit informed public discussion function.
Finally, I extend my thanks for the outstanding efforts of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Legal Policy Division of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for their collaborative work with the Office of Children and Families in the preparation of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In early 2013, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, together with the Northern Territory Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Health, raised four issues relating to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act. These matters were the subject of comment and rulings in both the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, and were also highlighted by law enforcement officers, legal practitioners, and other professionals who work under this legislation. The issues related to:
1. the wording of the offence of supplying a Schedule 2 dangerous drug to a person in an Indigenous community, at section 5(2)(a(iv) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
2. the need for supplying a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community to be specified as an aggravated circumstance in the penalty guidelines in section 37(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
3. inconsistencies and duplication in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, including reference to positional forms of drugs, reference to hallucinogenic properties of drugs and duplicated references, and
4. a deficiency in the wording and operation of the regulation making power under the act.
Madam Speaker, section 5(2)(a)(iv) was inserted by the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2008. This act amended the supply of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug offence to include an additional circumstance, namely supply of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug to a person in an Indigenous community. The amendment prescribed a maximum of nine years’ imprisonment where this additional circumstance was proven. In cases where the additional circumstance is not proven, a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment applies.
The former Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns, in this second reading speech to introduce the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2008 stated that the purpose of the amendment was to:
He went on to further state:
However, the wording inserted by the amendment act does not achieve the aims or purposes stated in the second reading speech.
In Nunggarrgalu v Millar, an unreported decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court on 11 January 2013, the court ruled that the wording of the provision, ‘supply to a person in an Indigenous community’, requires actual supply to a person to be proven.
The court agreed with the observations of her Honour Justice Blokland in Williams v Balchin [2012] NTSC 15 at 10 that:
Currently, investigators must allow dangerous drugs to be supplied ‘to a person in an Indigenous community’ before they can arrest an offender and charge him or her on the basis of the additional circumstance, and hence the higher maximum penalty, is applicable. This is the case even where an offender is arrested at an airport or in a bus outside an Indigenous community and there is clear evidence of an intention to supply in the Indigenous community. This fact is clearly at odds with the intention of the amendment act as outlined in the second reading speech in 2008, and unduly restricts the definition of supply as it applies to this offence.
Clause 4 of the bill amends section 5(2)(a)(iv) by omitting the words ‘to a person’. This means the nine-year imprisonment maximum penalty will be applicable where offenders are apprehended outside an Indigenous community, but evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt they were preparing to supply the drug in the Indigenous community. Clause 4 also amends section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow a statement to be used as evidence of the fact the offence occurred in, or was to occur, in an Indigenous community. Currently, the section only allows for the statement to be used when the supply is alleged to have occurred in an Indigenous community.
The second issue addressed in the bill relates to an ambiguity in the penalty guidelines of the act as they apply to section 5(2)(a)(iv) offence. ‘Supply of a dangerous drug in Indigenous community’ is not prescribed as a circumstance of aggravation in section 37(1), and this fact has drawn into question whether the mandatory imprisonment provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act apply when sentencing for this offence is finalised in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
By way of explanation, section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that when a person is charged with an offence under section 5 and is liable, on being found guilty, to a maximum penalty of 14 years or less, the matter may be heard summarily. If the matter is heard summarily the applicable maximum penalty available to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is two years’ imprisonment.
Section 37(2) states that when sentencing a person for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the court must impose a sentence requiring the offender to serve actual imprisonment, unless, having regard to the offender’s particular circumstances or the circumstances of the offence, actual imprisonment should not be imposed. This section applies to an offence that has a maximum penalty of seven years or more pursuant to section 37(2)(a), or where the maximum penalty is less than seven years but the offence is accompanied by an aggravating circumstance prescribed in section 37(1) - section 37(2)(b) refers.
As the Misuse of Drugs Act does not prescribe ‘supply of a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community’ as a circumstance of aggravation for the purposes of sentencing in section 37(1), the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is not required to impose actual imprisonment for the offence of supplying a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community as the maximum penalty applicable for the offence in that court, after a finding of guilt, is two years’ imprisonment. The issue was litigated in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 8 June 2012 and the oversight was highlighted by the sitting magistrate.
Drug suppliers and manufacturers are targeting Indigenous communities due to the increased profits that can be made from supplying drugs in these communities. It is essential the sentencing guidelines for this offence are clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied by all courts in the Northern Territory.
Clause 5 of this bill amends section 37(1) of the act by inserting the wording ‘an offence against section 5 that was committed in an Indigenous community’. This means the mandatory actual imprisonment provisions of section 37(2) will apply when the additional circumstance is proven.
The third matter relates to inconsistencies and duplication in the drug compounds prescribed in Schedule 2. These matters were identified during the investigation and prosecution of drug matters and have been highlighted by the Northern Territory Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, the judiciary, and legal practitioners. Given the number of amendments required, clause 9 omits the current Schedule 2 and replaces it with an updated clear and consistent Schedule 2.
It is important to note that no current dangerous drugs have been legalised as a result of these amendments, and in all cases where a positional form of a compound has been removed the base compound, if it is not already specified, has been included in the schedule.
The amendments fall into three areas; namely,
1. to remove the unnecessary duplication of dangerous drug references in Schedule 2. There are numerous examples where the same dangerous drugs have different names attributed to them in Schedule 2. This duplication has resulted in uncertainty and lack of clarity. For example, dexamphetamine, levomphetamine and amphetamine …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I ask you to pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from Taminmin College accompanied by Vicki Kane, Tracey Wing and Kara Kelly. On behalf of honourable members, welcome, Taminmin, and I hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: Welcome to Parliament House. I wish I could make this more exciting for you guys. However, where was I? Here we are.
2. to remove unnecessary references to positional forms of drugs in Schedule 2. Positional references to drugs are used to identify chemical variations of certain base drug compounds. It is unnecessary for the positional forms of the drugs to be listed in schedules due to the operation of the analogue provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
3. to remove unnecessary reference to ‘hallucinogenic’ properties or effects of substances. A number of references to dangerous drugs in Schedule 2 are qualified by having an ‘hallucinogenic’ element, which requires the prosecution to prove that the drug has hallucinogenic effects or properties. Two issues have arisen. First, a number of references in Schedule 2 have a drug compound listed and then a secondary reference where ‘hallucinogenic properties or effects’ need to be proven. This second reference is superfluous and the bill omits them.
Clause 6 of the bill amends the regulation making power in section 43 of the act by inserting a new subsection which allows for regulations to be made to move a dangerous drug reference, and the applicable trafficable and commercial quantities, from Schedule 2 to Schedule 1 by regulation. This will have the effect of enabling the maximum penalties for offences involving prescribed dangerous drugs to be increased by regulation.
Currently, the regulation making power only allows drug references to be added to schedules by regulation and does not allow a reference to be omitted from Schedule 2 to enable it to be prescribed in Schedule 1.
This bill does not allow dangerous drugs to be omitted entirely from the schedules by regulation, as omissions of drugs may have the effect of decriminalising their use, supply or manufacture and this should be scrutinised by parliament. This bill does not allow for dangerous drugs to be moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 by regulation, as such an amendment would substantially lower the maximum penalties available and this should also be scrutinised by parliament.
Finally, clause 7 of the bill inserts a specific transitional provision for this bill. This transitional provision is identical to the transitional provision contained in the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Methamphetamine) Bill 2013, and is necessary to preserve the current provisions of the act for all offences committed prior to the commencement of this bill.
The transitional provision also clarifies that ‘committed after commencement’ means all conduct constituting the offence must occur after commencement. The clarification is necessary as a criminal charge may allege a course of conduct that occurred both before and after commencement of this bill.
Drug suppliers are targeting Indigenous communities due to the profits that can be made and it is imperative these offenders face the full force of the law when they are found guilty, by any court, of such offending.
Furthermore, this government is committed to ensuring the aims and purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act are fully realised and that legislation is clear and workable for law enforcement, practitioners and the judiciary.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PETITION
Gas to Gove
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 994 petitioners praying that there is certainty to the supply of gas to Gove alumina refinery. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and advise that the opposition will support it.
The practice of female genital mutilation, FGM, is an abhorrent cultural practice which emanates predominantly from Africa and has no place in our country or the Northern Territory, and nor should it in any modern society.
I understand the bill provides for an amendment expanding the Criminal Code Act to adult women rather than just applying to children for the offence of taking a person from the Northern Territory, or making arrangements to take someone from the Northern Territory for the purpose of performing genital mutilation.
It is not intended that the victim be prosecuted under this bill, but consent is no defence to charges brought under this section.
Currently, only children are covered by section 186C of the Criminal Code Act which makes it an offence to remove a child from the Northern Territory with the intention of performing genital mutilation, or to arrange for the same.
This bill extends to protect adult women. All states and territories have provisions criminalising the performance of female genital mutilation. The Standing Council on Law and Justice identified the only area the Northern Territory is deficient in is in relation to adult women, and this bill will address that.
This bill comes, thankfully, not from a rise in incidents of this practice of women being removed from the Territory for the purpose of FGM, but as part of a review of Australia’s FGM legal framework led by the Australian government. It actually dates as far back as a report from the Family Law Council in 1995; however, the more recent review was announced by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 11 December 2012, and was coordinated by then Health minister, Tanya Plibersek. The final report, dated March 2013, was noted at the Standing Council on Law and Justice held in Darwin on 4 April this year.
Female genital mutilation is mentioned in the communique from that day in the summary of decisions:
This bill does that.
I have read the 20-page report, which is the federal government’s review of Australia’s FGM legal framework, and find some elements noteworthy. The executive summary in 1.2 around coverage of existing offences notes the need for jurisdictions to strengthen the legal framework as it relates to consistency of penalty and consistency of age coverage. The latter is achieved through this bill. The report discusses consistent penalties noting that:
It further highlights:
However, we know legislation alone, despite harsh penalties, will not deter the abhorrent practice of FGM. On the subject of enforcement issues the report states on page 4:
I trust, despite the fact we have had a change of government since this paper was issued, the matters highlighted and the six recommendations in this report would continue to be embraced by the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth will continue to work with each of the jurisdictions in the nation to ensure this abhorrent cultural practice does not raise its head in Australia.
It was an obvious question to ask at the briefing I attended recently: has anyone in the Territory been charged under section 186B or 186C? The answer was, essentially, no, insofar as statistics go back 12 years and show no one has been charged with these offences. That, in itself, is a good thing.
In researching for this debate and this important legislation - my thanks to Kaye Henderson from the Parliamentary Library Service for her role in helping me find information not only for this bill, but other bills I have spoken to.
A similar debate was raised in the Western Australia parliament in 2002. It was a matter of grievance raised by the member for Girrawheen to the then Attorney-General that although most jurisdictions brought into their criminal code female genital mutilation as an offence in around 1996, there was a loophole in Western Australia legislation. I will quote what the member for Girrawheen, Ms M Quirk, had to say:
Well said by that WA member of parliament in summing up the practice and how it is we have women coming to this country from overseas who have been through the practice of FGM and will, therefore, seek for their daughters to be part of it.
This legislation we are passing today helps to close the gap on the practice detailed in that contribution in the WA parliament about the awful physical and, no doubt, emotional scars that must go with that practice being performed on women.
The report from the Australian government also raises that grey area of how existing FGM laws might apply to female genital cosmetic or therapeutic procedures. The report notes on page 3:
It is indeed a complex issue which I raised during the briefing I had in the Attorney-General’s office. It was confirmed that there are some justifications for FGM, be it for therapeutic and medical reasons, also for gender reassignment, or sex change surgery.
I find a little bizarre the increase in cosmetic procedures. However, clearly there are women who will argue their right to and consent to the procedure known as labiaplasty, in the same way women will defend their right to and consent to breast implants.
My interest was twofold when, over the weekend, I visited our local newsagency to purchase a new publication on the market. This glossy magazine is called NipTuck. I had heard of it because the young woman who I believe is a co-publisher is a former student of Nhulunbuy High School and I know her and her family well. I was interested to look at the work she is producing. Clearly there is a consumer market for this type of publication, which is all about cosmetic surgery from whoa to go: cosmetic procedures for correcting dental problems and everything else you could possibly imagine. There is a market for advertisers to assist this publication and, as we know in Australia, there is a growing trend in consumerism, and there is nothing wrong with that. My husband was a little shocked when he saw me reading this publication. I said, ‘Don’t worry, this is for work’. There were several advertisements featuring doctor such and such and clinics all around the country that do surgery on women’s genitalia as part of a cosmetic process. It is a bit bizarre for me personally, but there is clearly a market for it.
There is a grey area, and the first of the six recommendations addresses this area and states:
Madam Speaker, I take the words at the opening of that sentence and the close, words like consider’ and ‘if necessary’ qualifies that recommendation meaning that in future meetings of the Standing Council on Law and Justice the Attorneys-General around the table may decide it is not worth pursuing. It will be an interesting discussion and an interesting aspect of the law to be looked at and considered.
While that is and will remain a grey area and peripheral matter for legislators, the important matter today is this bill ensures a loophole is closed in the Criminal Code Act to ensure women, be they girls or adults, are protected from the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and commend it to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the Attorney-General for bringing this important issue before parliament. I also thank the member for Nhulunbuy who does lots of research on these issues, much more than I could do. I will take her advice on what is in the NipTuck magazine and leave it at that.
I would also like to say thanks for some advice I received from the minister’s staff in relation to a query I had regarding clause 8 of Part XI Division 4. I will come back to that in a minute.
The purpose of this bill is to expand the application of section 186C of the Criminal Code Act to adult woman rather than just applying it to children. The amendment will ensure the offence of taking another person from the Northern Territory, or making arrangements for the same with the intention of performing female genital mutilation, is applicable to both children and adult women, so who could oppose that. Also, it brings us into line with the United Nations resolution, as mentioned in the second reading, which urges countries to condemn all harmful practices which affect both women and girls, and to take all the necessary measures to protect them from this form of violence. That is important wording at the end ‘this form of violence’ because that is what it is.
On this basis, the United Nations resolution does not limit the practice or protection by age. Last, the second reading says:
I fully support what the Attorney-General said in the second reading and believe any fair-minded person would agree. Changing the thinking of people from a country where this is permitted, or at least not frowned on – we need education to go with this as well. Customs different to those in Australian can sometimes be claimed as an excuse for this behaviour, and it would be part of the government’s responsibility to ensure people are aware this is not supported by Australians. That is clear from the Attorney-General’s second reading speech.
On the issues I raised, clause 8 Part XI, Division 4 – I am reading from the explanatory notes – says:
The simple explanation given to me was the Criminal Code Amendment (Female Mutilation) Bill 2013 provides that section 447 will be inserted into the Criminal Code Act. Section 447 contains the transitional provisions for the amendment to section 186C concerning adult females who are removed from the Territory for the purposes of female circumcision.
In relation to section 447(3) the explanatory notes say:
I had a problem working out the difference between those two. The answer I received, thanks to the minister and staff, was specifically that section 447(3) provides that amended section 186C is only applicable if all alleged criminal conduct occurs after the commencement of the act. Where a course of conduct is alleged to have occurred both before and after the commencement of the act, section 186C, as in force before commencement, continues to apply.
The purpose of section 447(3) is to ensure there is no confusion if a defendant were to be charged ‘between dates’. Where a course of conduct is alleged to have occurred both before and after commencement, the bill provides for the conservative policy position, which is that of not changing the criminal law so it has retrospective application. That is much clearer now; I understand what that means.
One issue worth raising today is that in recent times – I remember watching Dateline on SBS three or four months ago – there was the issue of male circumcision, with a great deal of discussion around whether that is a lawful procedure. Does the Attorney-General know if there is any move by governments down that road? I am not saying I agree, because there are many issues. If you had seen Dateline you would know that religious, cultural, and medical issues, along with many others matters, were discussed.
This bill does, at least, allow the question to be asked. Circumcision in Aboriginal communities has traditionally been the norm. In various religions, such as the Jewish religion, circumcision is spoken about in The Bible. Other people say it is unnecessary and a form of violence against a young child. There are arguments in the medical profession with some saying it is beneficial and others saying it is not.
We are talking about this issue, but it begs the question whether governments are looking at male circumcision. Does the Attorney-General know of any discussions occurring in parliaments around Australia in relation to the matter?
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt any fair-minded person would support this bill. I thank the minister for bringing it forward today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will start with the observations by the member for Nelson while they are fresh in my mind. I do not have notes in front of me.
In relation to female genital mutilation, the question of how that washes over into male circumcision is implied in what we are talking about. Female genital mutilation implies, by its very title, harm. We heard the member for Nhulunbuy quite accurately describe a number of manifestations of harm resulting from this barbarous practice. That type of harm is considered to be reprehensible by any society that believes the rights of the individual should be protected as far as possible.
The argument made by the member for Nelson is a question of benefit: whether male circumcision has a benefit or not. In some quarters there would be the argument that male circumcision is harmful but I suspect, as a general proposition in front of the community or most of the males I know who underwent that procedure long before their memory allows them to remember, it is the equivalent to a shrug of a shoulder and, ‘I don’t know if it has changed my life’. There is not the requisite harm in male circumcision to excite a response from the legislators in Australia.
In the Aboriginal context, some of the procedures, particularly in areas around Central Australia, step beyond the boundaries of mere circumcision as we know it. I suspect if there was a complaint from a person who has undergone that procedure unwillingly that the full force of the criminal law would be brought to bear, because that person would be within their rights to make a complaint of some form of assault.
That comes down to the nub of what we are talking about, and I made reference to it earlier when I said this is about rights. There are cultural rights, but rights occur on a scale and certain rights supersede others. It has been a structure of our system, captured throughout the western world, where, as a community, we pursue the protection of human rights. That has evolved over many hundreds of years. If you go back to England in the 1700s under Lord Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was an acknowledgement of human rights. That fight and those arguments have continued for a long time and continue even today.
It is within my, and the member for Nelson’s, living memory when women were paid a different salary because of their gender and nothing else. If you went through the newspapers of the time, there were many menial and uncomplicated jobs advertised in the women’s section for paid employment. All the professions were the preserve of men and were advertised in different parts of the newspaper.
We have been struggling with this concept of individuality, something not well understood by many people. The more it rises in our consciousness the more we understand a person should be measured by what happens in their head and their heart rather than their gender, how much light they reflect, whether they have some physical difference or damage, or any number of things. That is the perfect measure of a person. Before a person reaches 18 their parents should protect and try to encourage those things. That is the standard in the western world. It is not the standard practice in other cultures, and it is more than legitimate for us to say we reject cultural practices which are repugnant to those concepts of liberty.
When the former government moved to introduce legislation to this House to deal with female genital mutilation for children it was a justifiable step to intrude into a person’s cultural rights, even how they raise their children, because of the legacy effect it left for the child who becomes an adult. This is an irreversible procedure we are talking about.
Moreover, there are women trapped in cultural practices despite the fact they are adults who deserve the protection of this community. This bill is about extending the boundaries of the protection it will afford so people can make their own choices. This leads to the observations the member for Nhulunbuy raised in relation to cosmetic procedures.
I am aware there are a number of cosmetic procedures which have all the hallmarks of female genital mutilation, particularly when it comes to dealing with surgical alteration of the labia majora, which I understand can be done reasonably easily. In fact, on an episode of Embarrassing Bodies recently – the show out of England which is quite confronting – they demonstrated that procedure.
They are, essentially, medical procedures, which are not Part 2AA offences. They are offences which exist under the Griffith model of the Criminal Code. Basically, the Griffith model of the Criminal Code proposes something is unlawful unless it is authorised, justified or excused. Those three words are defined at length in the Griffith model of the Criminal Code.
Both the excuse and justification provisions are there, and there are authorisation provisions. The authorisation provisions, from memory, can be found in section 26 of the Criminal Code Act and allow for medical procedures. Those medical procedures may include one which brings about what was called grievous harm, which means some permanent injury was inflicted. Of course, a number of medical procedures inflict permanent injury, such as amputations, the removal of body parts like damaged eyes, and the removal of healthy body parts which are affected by other forms of malignancies. That legal protection needs to be there for a medical practitioner.
Consequently, I expect a person undergoing a medical procedure which implies voluntariness in the first instance and which is conducted by a medical practitioner – I presume people who do cosmetic procedures are – could do so lawfully even though it meant a permanent change in the body, which is grievous harm by the old definition under the Griffith model of the Criminal Code.
That means it is authorised by law. The law says you can have these medical procedures. If there was an absence of voluntariness it would not be a medical procedure. If the person involved was under the age of 18 years, for example a person who had not become an adult, I would be surprised if any medical practitioner would engage in cosmetic surgery unless it had the blessing of the parents.
I return to the nexus I described at the outset where the issue of medical procedures is basically benefit versus harm. If the parent of a child goes to a doctor and a medical procedure is conducted which sees an amputation, clearly a doctor would do so only in circumstances where they believed the benefit would outweigh the harm. The law recognises that.
I would be surprised to hear of any medical practitioner who would engage in a cosmetic procedure on a child without the authority of the parents. I suspect a doctor who chose to do something like that would have intruded into criminality, if not gross negligence. Nevertheless, they are valuable considerations and add to the lustre of thinking surrounding this debate.
I hope that answers the questions and issues raised by the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I thank them for their consideration and thoughtfulness in relation to this debate. They have both clearly cast their minds to this issue and they have asked some poignant and worthwhile questions.
Having made that recognition, there is little more to add other than to say this is good and sound law, and I hope we never have to use it in this jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 19 February 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset I acknowledge and thank the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, for the fine work he does on behalf of Territorians in auditing the accounts of the Northern Territory government. As part of that auditing, he regularly hands down his Auditor-General’s reports. I note there are several on the Notice Paper today, and I will be speaking on behalf of opposition to the February 2013 report because, ostensibly, it goes through the accounts of the Treasurer and audits the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, which is the audit findings and accounts of the financial year ended 30 June 2012. That was the last budgeted year I had control of, the last outcome I had as Treasurer, and this is an audit of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. These are the audited actuals of the returns of the 2011-12 financial year.
The audit opinion is clean, with the exception of uncertainty surrounding the valuation of work in progress in the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, otherwise known as SIHIP: in other words, a clean bill of health fully accounted by the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the last budgeted year in which I was Treasurer, the 2011-12 year. You had the Auditor-General independently audit the books. The Auditor-General has given it a clean bill of health: a clean audit, with the exception of SIHIP.
In relation to SIHIP, I understand the detailed toing and froing between the government agencies and the Auditor-General went to how you calculate the level of progress. Were some houses deemed to be completed or not, and, therefore, how are they accounted for in the government’s assets? Are they completed at handover of key, or are they completed when physically finished and able to have the keys handed over, but they have not been.
That is the level of detail you get into when assessing programs such as SIHIP and whether that work is on the books or off the books in regard to the deemed completion of progress of that work. That is purely a technicality and could only be viewed as such. This is a very clean bill of health – a tick. The financial statement of the actual return on the figures of the 2011-12 financial year are contained in here, and they have been audited and found to be accurate and correct by our independent Auditor-General.
Therefore, let us go to what it shows. It shows, in Table 1, the nett operating balance was in surplus by $165.7m as at 30 June 2012. I know the government does not want to use a nett operating balance and uses the financial sector rather than the general public sector. They also use the fiscal balance not the nett operating balance. However, the nett operating balance – it is in the explanatory notes – is an accurate depiction of the health of the books.
The government has said, and had a paid advisor say in the lead-up to the August 2012 election, that we were ‘borrowing on the Bankcard to pay wages’. Here it is in black and white, in fact, audited …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot help themselves. These are the audited accounts, and the Auditor-General said the CLP has been telling porkies ...
Mr Tollner: Explain that to the member for Casuarina.
Ms LAWRIE: No, CLP little porkies. You have been caught out telling porkies. You told porkies before the August election, and have been telling porkies since the election. You keep saying, ‘You were borrowing on the Bankcard to pay wages’. Today we are debating the independent Auditor-General’s report to the Legislative Assembly. I will quote Table 1 because it elicited much excitement from the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, who have been telling the biggest porkies. I will go back to it Table 1 …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw my last comment. The members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim have been ‘pretending’ Labor was ‘spending on the Bankcard to pay wages’. That is factually and completely wrong. It is contained in the Auditor-General’s audit of the financial statement of the 2011-12 financial year; so you are wrong. Factually and accurately, we were in operating surplus. The surplus was $165.7m as at 30 June 2012. That is the nett operating balance. That is the result of that financial year and …
Mr Elferink: So how does the debt keep going up? You can produce surpluses and debt at the same time!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There is an opportunity for the member for Port Darwin to go on his frolic of fancy of what these accounts are and his interpretation of them. He can contribute his interpretation. However, the black and white, written and signed off by the Auditor-General, is what I believe to be fact.
The fact is there was a nett operating balance, a surplus, of $165.7m as at 30 June 2012.
He went on to say in employment, and where the majority of increases were occurring in the payments – this is pertinent to the behaviour of this government so I will talk about it – they are in the former Departments of Children and Families, Education and Training, Health, and Justice.
If you say to Territorians there was real and genuine growth in employees across the Departments of Children and Families, Education and Training, Health, and Justice, they would think, ‘That is good because that is core business’. It does not get much more core business than that.
We know the CLP has a different set of priorities. Under the CLP we have lost about 170 staff from Children and Families - the child protection agency. They have taken an axe to the Department of Education, cutting that budget by 10%, and we are losing about 120 teachers even though they say, ‘No, there is just a nett loss of 35’. Do the figures and call the schools like we have. Do some real research instead of …
Mr Elferink: We saw the quality of your research yesterday, if I recall.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You do not like it because the truth hurts, John. They have taken an axe to training. What the members opposite do not realise is that when you take an axe to training you cut the crucial programs that help people get into employment, which is largely affecting Indigenous Territorians. You say you will help the bush, but you have taken an axe to training and are hurting the people who need a leg up into employment the most.
As for Health and Justice, you heard the member for Nelson’s question today in Question Time regarding the loss of health workers from our remote clinics. Rather than bothering to get to the bottom of any real information, it was dismissed out of hand.
In Justice, we know a series of lawyers has been sacked. They are outsourcing and it will cost them a motza, but they will come to realise that when it is too late. Has anyone asked the Minister for Correctional Services how much he is spending year-to-date actual compared to budgeted in Corrections? You might want to ask that question, Treasurer.
You might want a briefing from Treasury. Send them over to Corrections, run their eyes over the books, and you might find how you are travelling year-to-date – actual expenditure compared to budget. If you want to know you can ask, Treasurer. That was just a tip because the public service is leaking like a sieve at the moment.
Table 1 showed a nett operating surplus of $165m. Table 2 is the summary of cash flows, which shows nett cash flows from operations are in surplus – actual return at $638m. If you take out the cash deficit, you have an operating balance of cash and deposits at $519m surplus. We have not seen the fairy tale fantasy of the members opposite yet.
We then go to debt – Table 3 shows the components of the financial position. Nett debt as at the 30 June 2012, a month before the election, was $1.89bn. Did you hear that? No interjections from members opposite that time. That is amazing. They did not bite at that one, did they? I will throw that out again just in case you missed it: as at 30 June 2012, $1.89bn in nett debt.
Mr Elferink: According to you, that is a good result.
Ms LAWRIE: Let me think about it. Is the figure they have been repeating in their weird mantra $5.5bn?
When they say Labor left a debt of $5.5bn, they are factually and actually wrong. No, you were left a debt of $1.89bn not $5.5bn. Let us not let the truth get in the way of the CLP fantasy.
They are always talking about the projected debt growing in the out years to 2016, and that is projected not actual. The actual debt is $1.89bn. The CLP is predicting their debt to be $5.1bn. We know many things fluctuate over time; revenue and expenses fluctuate. You can best predict in this actual financial statement and the audited accounts and outcomes – what you see is an improvement from what was budgeted to what was actually achieved in the 2011-12 financial year. At budget time you predict what you think your incomings and outgoings will be through the forthcoming financial year and, of course, things change.
That being said, we had a 2011-12 budget prediction and the actuals, which is the audited account, have come in at an improved outcome. We did better, if you like, than we expected in the surplus and the improvements in these actual figures. Without a doubt, nett debt as at 30 June 2012 was $1.89bn, not the $5.5bn the CLP would have people believe.
I note the Treasurer’s annual financial statement audit by the Auditor-General comments on a mini-budget tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 4 December 2012. It indicates the forward estimates suggest the growth in the debt ratio will continue to grow for another two years at least. The point I am making is, one often lost on many people, that by their decision in their budgets – the mini-budget and the May 2013 budget – they are increasing debt. They would have people believe the fantasy that they have debt under control.
Labor had budget surpluses which produced a $582m reduction in debt until the global financial crisis hit, which saw a consequential wipe out in GST revenue flowing from the Commonwealth, as well as the need to dramatically increase the capital program to ensure Territory businesses did not close.
The result of that prudent behaviour was a 13 000 increase in employees in the Territory. We had low unemployment and the economic outlook of being the fastest growing economy in the nation. Things are a little different these days. We have a predicted $5.1bn debt from the CLP. We have unemployment rising to 5.5%: some 7500 people looking for a job. Thank you, CLP, for putting them into unemployment land because you simply do not know how to manage your budgets.
Another thing I point members’ attention to is figure 6, the components of the general government sector revenue. It is important to note that 81% of those components of revenue are from grants. Included in that is the GST. Quite appropriately, the Auditor-General makes comment on how reliant the Northern Territory is on grants rather than more normal sources of revenue, such as tax. The GST, as we know, is a tax, but it is collected by the Commonwealth, so it is not under the control of the Northern Territory government.
In that pie chart we can see a small 8.2%, revenue from taxation, 3% from royalties and 4% from the sales of goods and services. The Auditor-General then provides a breakdown in figure 7 of the general government sector expenses. This is where the expenditure goes in the general government sector: 38% of the government spend in 2011-12 was on employee benefits. Yet, if you listen to the rhetoric of the CLP, it was all on a bloated, inefficient public sector with employee after employee being put on. However, when you look at the facts, the breakdown is 38%. It is not the bloating the CLP would have us believe. They have never been too close to the truth in their rhetoric in this area.
In figure 8, if you look at the general government expenses on a functional basis – this is also pertinent to understanding if you are spending across your government revenues – what areas show the bulk of the spend? The breakdown is 24% for health – the highest – followed closely by education at 20%, down to public order and safety at 12%. Then you start to drop quite a bit and housing and community amenities is at 9.9%, and social security and welfare at 7.4%.
From that you can see the big government service delivery engine rooms of health and education make up about 44.3% of government expenditure. Ask yourself, what is the role of government? If you understand the role of government, which obviously the CLP has great difficulty grappling with, government has to ensure a quality of health and education services so we get the outcomes we need as a society and are able to attend to prosperity through the education of Territorians and give everyone the opportunities that come with a good education. Government has a responsibility to ensure that if you are sick you get the appropriate attendant care, and to deal with the trauma we see across the Territory, whether it is road accidents – we will see a few more on the Stuart Highway thanks to the stupidity of this government. However, I digress.
These are the actuals, this is the breakdown. This is what was happening under Labor. It will be interesting to see, in a couple of years’ time, these figures compared to the CLP, and we will be doing that. That is where you will see the dramatic impact the Country Liberal Party cuts have had on core government services.
You will see the percentages drop in education fairly dramatically given the extent of the cuts across education. Some of the health cuts are coming to light, more by stealth than by information being provided in an open, accountable, or transparent way by the Country Liberal Party government. However, when the actual returns come in and are audited, such as this Auditor-General’s report, there is no hiding from the truth.
I am proud of the truth in this picture of where we have come in on an operating surplus, where we have a $1.8bn debt, where we have genuine expenditure into health, education and public safety, and where you can see a very reasonable spend – a 38% spend on public sector employees. This is a healthy set of books by any measure. I guarantee it will not be the measure of the Treasurer. He believes the only place there is global warming is the planet Triton. This is the calibre of the man we have to deal with ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Triton is a moon.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin saying Triton is a moon. It was described in a parliamentary report by the member for Fong Lim, I believe, as a moon or a planet.
Mr Tollner: You talk about research, check it out.
Ms LAWRIE: You described it as a moon did you, Dave? Triton?
Mr Tollner: I did not describe it as anything.
Ms LAWRIE: You are a winner for Triton are you? ‘Beam me up’.
Mr Tollner: You do not even know the context of it.
Ms LAWRIE: Global warming, remember that report, it is coming back to you.
Mr Tollner: It was not a global warming report.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I refer the Treasurer, who is on a moon in global warming parlance, to the Auditor-General’s view in the annual financial statement for 2011-12, which is, of course, the last financial year in which Labor had control of the budget. Essentially, he said the actual financial outcome for 2011-12 was $175m, $81m better than the expected outcome considered by the Legislative Assembly in May 2011 and predicted in the budget.
We came in at $175m in surplus. That is an $81m improvement in what was anticipated. I am pretty happy with that result. Obviously we managed in really difficult times with dramatic losses in revenue as a result of the reduction in GST and the need, in the private sector, for government to step up its spend in the capital program. Sitting behind dry subjects such as these figures is what we did, where we delivered 13 000 new jobs into the Territory in two global financial crisis affected years. We also delivered the major project which is underpinning growth in the economic data for the Territory.
The CLP has been busy dismantling anything that worked because of their bizarre views, sticking their heads in the sand and not listening to what industry needs government to do. They have gone on a blame game, sacking public servants and depressing their wages. In real terms, Territorians will go backwards because inflation is starting to skyrocket. Prior to the CLP we had inflation sitting under 3%. It skyrocketed under the CLP and is now sitting around 3.9% and is likely to increase.
These guys are a basket case. They do not know how to govern, and you see that in the tragic data regarding job losses and in unemployment, with 7500 Territorians looking for a job. They have completely made up the debt position in the Territory. The Auditor-General deals with facts. I will deal with the facts of the Auditor-General: we were in surplus, we had a $1.8bn debt and you tell people whatever you want.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness for the work he does. It is often a thankless task and, I imagine, quite tedious at times dealing with all those figures. Thank you Frank, I am sure the public appreciates you being the guardian of their funds and ensuring we spend money wisely.
There is only one mention in the Auditor-General’s February report of agencies within my portfolio responsibilities: the Nitmiluk National Park Board, which comes under the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I am also the lucky local member for the park. Before I turn to Nitmiluk Park I would like to give the House a few statistics about the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
There are 87 parks and reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission across the Northern Territory, which equates to over 4.4 million hectares of land and includes 15 national parks and two marine parks, being Cobourg and Limmen Bight.
In the last 12 months, there were nearly three million visits to our major parks. What I am most proud of is that 32 of our parks are jointly managed with traditional owners. These joint management arrangements provide local jobs and local business opportunities for Aboriginal people. I hope to increase that figure, with several other joint management arrangements being worked on right now.
Our parks are internationally famous for their attractions, their unique fauna, flora and geological features. Cobourg Peninsula, for example, was designated the world’s first site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.
Turning to Nitmiluk, the board was formed in 1989 under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. The board is responsible for managing the nearly 300 000 ha national park owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal people. Most of us are aware of this park’s amazing features: the beautiful sandstone country with deep gorges, broad valleys and numerous significant cultural sites. The deep gorge carved through ancient sandstone by the Katherine River is the central attraction of the park. Other features include local accommodation, a boat ramp, boat tours, camping, canoeing, fishing, helicopter tours, an amazing kiosk and visitor centre, a picnic area, swimming and world-renowned walking tracks.
The country you walk through is Jawoyn country, and it changes from savannah grasslands to rocky escarpment outcrops and rainforest pockets. It is a challenging trail with beautiful swimming holes at every campsite and amazing Jawoyn rock art which can be viewed at the amphitheatre. It is an amazing part of the NT and one of our most internationally-known locations.
As the report notes, the purpose of the board is to manage this fantastic park and provide for the management and control of certain other land. Nitmiluk National Park has been jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government since 1989 when the Jawoyn people won their land claim for the area. The park management is heralded as a model for joint management between Aboriginal people and governments across Australia. The board is comprised of 13 members appointed by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. Of the 13 members, eight are Aboriginal traditional owners of the park nominated by the Jawoyn Association. The position of chair of this board is held by a Jawoyn traditional owner. The board also employees a number of Jawoyn people as rangers.
I am pleased to advise that the audit of the financial statements of Nitmiluk National Park Board for the year ended 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, and the Auditor-General said everything appeared to be okay.
The report noted park revenue declined from $0.8m for 2010-11 to $0.6m for 2011-12. The revenue received was distributed to traditional owners, who received 60%, and the former Department of Natural Resources, the Environment, the Arts and Sports, NRETAS, received the remaining 36% on behalf of the NT government.
The report found that revenue dropped because of a drop in visitor numbers. My colleague, the Minister for Tourism, has implemented a fantastic Do the NT marketing campaign. As the minister has outlined to the House, Do the NT is a new brand strategy for Tourism NT to better sell the Northern Territory and boost holiday visitor numbers. I agree with the minister, we live in one of the most spectacular places on the planet with unique spiritual, cultural and natural attractions. To improve visitor numbers and park revenue, the NT government is investing an extra $8m into tourism. This shows the priority this government places on tourism in order to help build a better Territory economy and create more jobs. Our new brand position expresses a can-do attitude which is part of the character Territorians have always embraced.
The Northern Territory government’s new Tourism Vision 2020 strategy aims to deliver $2.2bn in annual visitor spending to the Northern Territory’s economy by 2020. The first phase of the new campaign was rolled out across the east coast of Australia in August and September 2013. I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Tourism, to see how we can promote this great park to boost visitor numbers. I also look forward to working with the new Chair of the Jawoyn Association, Lisa Mumbin, to develop more tourism and job opportunities through the board and the park. Jointly, we will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park, and I look forward to seeing a much better financial outcome.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank Frank McGuiness for again doing a sterling job in his role as Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General’s report confirms everything we have said. It confirms the numbers put out by the previous government, which this government bases its criticisms on. There is nothing in the Auditor-General’s report inconsistent with what the previous government was or is saying.
The Opposition Leader has a completely different take on it. She suggests they had a fiscal surplus. I am unsure if she read the same budget or was Treasurer in the previous government based on those comments. It flies in the face of everything the Auditor-General found and everything she presented when Treasurer of the Northern Territory. As I say, it confirms the level of debt the Territory is wearing and confirms the projections the previous Treasurer made in relation to growing of the debt.
The fact is, and she may try to deny it, we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt. That is the projection the previous Treasurer made. The Country Liberals find that unacceptable. The previous Labor government obviously found it quite acceptable. They did not think they were in such a bad way, but the Leader of the Opposition puts an interesting qualification on that. She says, ‘They are projections, they are rubbery, these projections will change’. The fact is, the former Treasurer set this government up for a projected debt of $5.5bn.
I agree things change and incidents occur which make those projections invalid. However, if you look at the way Labor governments operate, I do not know of too many instances anywhere in history …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, the Opposition Leader says projections are often rubbery, and that is certainly the case, but when you look at the track record of the previous government, particularly the previous Treasurer, spending never reduced. In fact, year on year, spending increased. When you look at Labor governments through the history of time, it is hard to find one with a record of paying down debt. Labor governments are quite good at creating debt.
The bizarre statement the Opposition Leader made a minute ago was that they had a surplus in the last budget. If there was a surplus, why was debt increasing? It is ridiculous to suggest debt would be increasing from the $1.8bn or $1.9bn currently to $5.5bn and they are running surpluses. What a ridiculous statement the Opposition Leader made.
Nothing is more graphic in explaining the way Labor governments operate than the last federal government budget by Wayne Swan – we all heard Wayne Swan projected there would be $1.1bn surplus in the last federal budget. What was the reality? The reality was he announced, on budget day, a $19.4bn deficit. He went from a $1.1bn surplus to a $19.4bn deficit, a $20.5bn turnaround. The numbers are astonishing. He announced on budget day that is where they would be. When the numbers finally came in – we now know the budget deficit for that financial year was over $30bn. Goodness me, what would $30bn injected into the Northern Territory economy mean for us? It would be like winning lotto. A $30bn deficit is the state of the finances Wayne Swan left the Australian people with, and these guys have the audacity to suggest they are good fiscal managers. It is absolute nonsense.
The Auditor-General’s report Frank McGuiness has put together confirms, without a doubt, everything the previous government was doing.
I need to respond to some of the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. She said the big parts of the budget were the big government service delivery engine rooms of health and education. I know a bit about the health system, briefly being Health minister, and the health system we inherited was massively under stress. Infrastructure and buildings were falling down around the ears – and still are to a large extent – of its workers. Morale was low, and there was an urgent need of reform. Unfortunately, the previous government did not have the wherewithal or the ticker to make the necessary reforms.
I will give Kevin Rudd some credit; he had a view on creating hospital networks. The previous government created two hospital networks but they had no capacity to hire or fire and no capacity to spend money. Those networks were, in reality, a sham. They were nothing but window-dressing to say, ‘We met your reform requirements’. In reality, the reform that previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was calling for never took place in the Northern Territory.
I often said the previous network boards, whilst manned by wonderful people who wanted to do things, with no ability to determine staffing, no capacity to spend money or make financial decisions, were really meeting for tea and cakes. That has changed under this government. The biggest reforms to the health system are now being implemented by the Health minister, who is doing a sterling job in that area. One would expect over the next months, years, couple of years, there will be some significant changes in the way services are delivered to Territorians through our health system.
We are interested in giving communities greater control of the health services they require. We have faith in employees at the coalface to make decisions. We have blown away those silos of power which existed within the Health department under the previous government, and we allow local communities to make decisions which affect them the most. That is why we now have two Health Services Boards in place which will drive local engagement, local community input, and allow people working at the coalface to make decisions critical to meet the health needs of the people they service.
That is what service is about. Service is not about loading up the Health department with more and more money and not changing the way they do business. People want service. They do not care how much money goes into any particular department. They demand the service that best suits their needs.
The other big service delivery room the Opposition Leader mentioned was the Education department. If it was about service you would think the results of children attending school to be a great indicator of the service we are providing. The previous government, in the last five years, increased funding to the Education department by 46%. Teacher numbers increased by 20% in the last five years of the previous government, but school results, the outcomes of that spending, went backwards. We have the worst school results in the developed world. Look at the NAPLAN results in the Northern Territory and it is pretty well a sea of red. There are very few standout schools in the Northern Territory.
However, we are castigated for making changes to that system. I put to those opposite: this is not about the amount of money we spend; it is about the service we provide. That is, fundamentally, the difference between our government and the previous government – those on the other side who believe the result is how much money you can allocate to a service or agency. For the previous government, spending was an outcome in itself. Hence, we now have a projected debt of $5.5bn. In the last budget they handed down there was an almost $900m budget deficit. That was $900m we did not have and had to borrow to pay for our own needs.
There are 230 000 people living in the Northern Territory and we are spending $900m more than we have. The previous Treasurer, the Opposition Leader, believes that is a good thing and it was necessary we spend more than we earn. She said, ‘This is not a business, this is a government’. Is that an excuse to borrow more and more? The Greeks do it, I suppose the Spanish do it, and the Portuguese do it. A few countries spend more than they earn then borrow. The result of that is called a debt crisis and Europe is in the grip of it at the moment. This decadent living beyond your means does it.
The first thing we need to do, as a government, is understand how much we have to allocate and how we deliver the best possible service with that. Ignoring the money side of things and saying, ‘We can throw any amount of money at a problem’, is the answer. The Banned Drinker Register, which they saw as a solution, was a costly exercise. Mandatory alcohol treatment is very costly too; however with the BDR there were still drunks all over the place; there was no lessening of the number of drunks.
At least with mandatory alcohol treatment there is the ability to reduce the number of problem drunks in the Northern Territory. You are giving people a chance at a new life, turning them from a social problem into a social benefit. Getting somebody off the grog living a normal life, possibly getting a job, working for a living and paying their bills, and getting their kids into school is a social dividend that can come from mandatory alcohol treatment. The previous government seemed to think spending money was the right thing to do.
Every time we announce a spending cut the opposition goes completely nuts. In their view, spending money is what we have to do. Despite the fact the Leader of the Opposition talks about the big service delivery rooms, the previous Labor government was not so interested in service delivery. They were interested in spending money to alleviate problems, with no idea how it would be spent or how it would relieve the problem.
What sort of government believes putting an alcoholic’s name on a register will stop them drinking? How ridiculous. That system had to go.
It was interesting to hear the Opposition Leader banging on about how much money we are spending in Corrections, warning me to keep an eye on the Minister for Correctional Services. I am keeping a close eye on the Minister for Correctional Services, and what I see is a bloke who has enormous capability, is taking a fresh approach to how we deal with prisoners, is looking at the service delivery and outcomes of programs, and seeing if there might be a chance – it is not the case, but if he was spending more money than allocated, I would still look at his programs and say the outcomes he is achieving in the area of Corrections are worth the additional expenditure.
Mr Elferink: However …
Mr TOLLNER: However, as the Minister for Correctional Services says, that is not the case. In fact, the Minister for Correctional Services is also …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, the Minister for Correctional Services is getting better results than the previous Labor government and spending less money doing it …
Mr Elferink: We are making money in several areas.
Mr TOLLNER: He interjects saying, ‘We are making money,’ and, as Treasurer, I am keen to see that. I can confirm the Minister for Correctional Services is not blowing his budget. Interestingly, a big part of the debt burden we have is emanating from that department for construction of the brand new prison at Howard Springs, the one the member for Nelson originally said they would never have but then backflipped. When it is completed, the projections in the final days of the dying Labor government were that it would be …
Mr Elferink: The figures are $495m, blown out to $610m.
Mr TOLLNER: Its capacity was already breached at 130% or something along those lines ...
Mr Elferink: It will be full on the day of opening.
Mr TOLLNER: It will be choc-a-block on the day of opening, and we will probably need another prison the day it is opened.
Hopefully, with a new Correctional Services minister having the complementary portfolio of Attorney-General, we will see a change in that number. If the Sentenced to a Job program works we might be able to fit all our prisoners in that prison, which would be a remarkable achievement given the previous Labor government’s projection showed it was beyond capacity the day construction commenced.
This government’s view is that it is not necessarily about money. It is about changing the way you do things and looking for areas to reform because we understand we have no money. We are looking down the barrel, irrespective of what the Opposition Leader says, of a projected debt of $5.5bn. We cannot, in all consciousness, let that situation stand. Ultimately, it is not us who pay that bill, it is our children, and I do not want to leave that legacy for our children to mop up.
Generally, the thought amongst Australians is you work hard, look after your children, give them an education, provide them with food and nurture them. They get a job, you continue to save money, put a little away for a rainy day, and when we leave this world we leave a legacy for our children. Some people might say, ‘I want to make sure when I die my kids have a house. I will stump up the funds for the mortgage.’ An inheritance is what most Australians want to leave for their children, something to give them a better start than they had. In this situation we are leaving our children in a worse place than we were, which is appalling.
In the early days of the previous Labor government, under Clare Martin and Syd Stirling, there was recognition of that and they put together FITA, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, which highlighted these aspirations. They did not want intergenerational debt and saw it as a major problem.
They passed FITA into law. Clare and Syd might not have done a very good job, but they did much better than the next lot, because that was the Leader of the Opposition. She was Treasurer, and that is when we saw the Northern Territory accelerate flat-out backwards and start to rack up debt. That is when the government breached its own law, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. It was a shameful time for the Northern Territory. It was a hard time for Territorians, grappling with the idea of leaving children in a situation where they would be forced to pay off the debt incurred by previous governments. It was wrong.
There has to be different ways of doing things, and for the last week we have heard the opposition cranking up hysterically about what is happening in education. I say again, in the last five years education funding under the previous Labor government increased by 46%, teacher numbers increased by 20%, but school results went backwards. We laugh about that at times, but it is a terrible situation. For the opposition to think we should live with that and keep throwing more money at things, employ more teachers when results are going backwards – I am praying the penny drops on the other side and they understand that sometimes it is not necessarily about money. It is about how you structure departments, the services you provide, and how everything interacts with it. More money does not necessarily solve the problem. The Education department is proof: an increase of 46%, teacher numbers going up by 20% in the last five years and school results going backwards.
It is heartbreaking when you see the published NAPLAN results and the Northern Territory is in a sea of red. We are the worst performing jurisdiction in this country, and probably nearly the worst performing jurisdiction in the developed world. That is the legacy the previous government left us. That is what our Education minister is dealing with. We have to find new ways of providing education services in the Territory, because what Labor did was not working. They can bleat and carry on, try to cause hysteria and fear in the community – they are masters at that – but, at the end of the day, when you read it in black and white, when you pick up the NAPLAN results and see us year on year going backwards, you have to scratch your head and ask, ‘Are we doing something wrong?’
Again, thank you to Frank McGuiness for this report. It confirms everything that occurred in the past, and confirms everything this government has been banging on about for the last 12 months. We have to cut spending, focus on service delivery, ensure we are doing what Territorians want us to and, at the same time, drive economic growth and allow the private sector to invest in the Northern Territory and provide jobs desperately needed by Territorians.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, today I make a contribution to the debate on the Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Specifically, I would like to focus on the performance management system audit the Auditor-General undertook on management by the Department of Health of the contract for the provision of aeromedical retrieval services by CareFlight.
The objective of the audit was to determine whether the systems established by the Department of Health support the management of the contract between the Northern Territory government and CareFlight for the provision of aeromedical services and, in particular, enable CareFlight’s performance and contractual obligations to be monitored and managed.
Based on the evidence gathered during the audit, the Auditor-General formed the opinion that the systems established by the department did not fully support the management of the contract between the Northern Territory government and CareFlight for the provision of aeromedical services. It was not a glowing report by the Auditor-General on this issue.
In particular, it did not enable CareFlight’s performance and contractual obligations to be monitored and managed at a level commensurate with that required of a contract of this magnitude. The Auditor-General’s report provides a number of recommendations to the Department of Health focusing on contract management, data collection and analysis. An internal review has been undertaken by the Department of Health aimed at improving major contract management within the department.
Following receipt of the report I met with the Auditor-General to gain a better understanding of the issues raised in this report. At that meeting the Auditor-General expressed the view the work under way within the Department of Health would correct the issues he raised. From the government’s perspective, I told the Auditor-General we would monitor this issue closely and ensure lessons are learnt and our contract management procedures and processes are improved.
However, I need to make it clear that while the Department of Health is now actively working to fix the situation, the problem was created by the former Labor government and those opposite. Labor set the time frame for changing aeromedical services and, by doing so, ripped up a pre-existing contract with Pearl Aviation costing Territory taxpayers $3.5m for early termination. Yes, $3.5m because the former Labor government ripped up the pre-existing contract with Pearl Aviation. That is $3.5m of wasted money: $3.5m paid for early termination of a contract.
Regardless of whether that original contract was poorly constructed, it is clear that when Labor was in charge of the purse strings they failed to manage the expenditure of public monies. These are more examples of how Labor frittered away the precious funds of the Northern Territory government over a long period of time. No wonder our fiscal situation is in the state it is.
The Auditor-General also notes it took 14 months after tenders closed to award the contract. After spending $3.5m to rip up a contract, this time delay under Labor appears lengthy. Why would you, after taking so much time to award the contract, terminate the existing contract at a price of $3.5m? It beggars belief how Labor came to these decisions, and how they can claim they were good fiscal managers.
At the end of this protracted tender process, you would expect the contract, and administration of the contract, to be up to scratch. Unfortunately, the 10-year contract came into effect on 1 January 2013 and, only eight months later, we have an Auditor-General’s report recommending significant oversight improvements are needed. Labor got it wrong at every point in the process of awarding the contract, terminating the existing contract, the time it took – it was clearly a debacle. Any member of the public can get a copy of the Auditor-General’s report and read it for themselves. It was one debacle after another.
My colleague, the member for Greatorex, was the shadow minister for Health during the time the former Labor government was changing aeromedical contracts. I remember him working long and hard trying to hold the government to account, and he did a great job on this issue. It was the topic of lengthy discussion at budget estimates and in the media, but to no avail. It was still managed extremely poorly and evidence of that is in the Auditor-General’s report.
It is unfortunate that, given this attention by the media through the estimates process and the great work the member for Greatorex did in alerting the public to the imminent and present problems, Labor still managed to bungle it.
In closing, I thank the Auditor-General for shining the spotlight on this issue. I acknowledge the hard work already under way within the Department of Health to get their house in order. I note this is yet another clear example of Labor mismanagement when on the government benches.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the Auditor-General’s report. I will make some comments on the August 2013 Auditor-General’s report covering the six-month period to 30 June 2013.
As usual, the Auditor-General’s report covers a range of areas as a result of his auditing activities across government. The four areas include financial audits, review of IT systems, compliance audits and performance management system audits. The Auditor-General places considerable reliance on compliance audits as he does not audit the financial statements of agencies per se. The Auditor-General conducted 12 compliance audits and one performance management system audit, along with IT audits.
I will comment on the performance management system audit he performed on the contract for aeromedical retrieval services with the Department of Health. As members are aware, this issue has a lengthy history. As Minister for Health, I oversaw termination of the previous contract and implementation of the interim arrangements. The current government awarded the new long-term contract in January 2013.
It is easy to make accusations about contract termination and how much it cost the public to terminate that contract. What the member opposite, the current Minister for Health, does not and will not tell us about, because it does not suit her, is the problem with that contract and why it was terminated. The text of that will show it was money well spent to terminate the contract and award the interim contract to another entity.
The agency invested many hundreds of hours in upgrading and replacing these services, with improved services for Territorians. It is a complex and important service and largely demand driven. A highly technical procurement and transitional process was embarked upon which resulted in CareFlight undertaking the services on behalf of Territorians for the next eight years. It was not only retrieving people, but a totally coordinated and complex system incorporating the people who make the decision for a medical evacuation …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Sorry to interrupt, member for Casuarina, but are you speaking to the February Auditor-General’s report?
Mr VATSKALIS: February.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the February report following the comments by the Minister for Health.
At the moment we have the only coordinated contract where people in CareFlight will respond to a call for a medivac, a person will make a decision, and the plane will fly and return the injured person to hospital.
It was a very complex contract done in such a way to safely medivac people from anywhere in the Northern Territory to Darwin or Alice Springs. The matters are well extrapolated by the Auditor-General and include the lengthy history. It is entirely appropriate the Attorney-General carefully and thoroughly examines all issues in relation to this contract to ensure taxpayers’ interests are properly and fully protected.
I note the finding of the Attorney-General at the time of the audit that the systems established by the department did not fully support management of the contract. I further note that at the time of the audit the department was already implementing the recommendations contained in a review of the matter in late 2012.
After a complex interim period it was appropriate that a review of the performance and contractual matters be performed. The recommendations were taken seriously and were quickly and thoroughly implemented. I note that the Attorney-General advised the timing of the audit was during the period of improvement and enhancement, which is now delivering better compliance to the Attorney-General’s requirements, with ongoing work required and realistic time frames set to achieve continuous improvement. Recommendations made by the Attorney-General are, as usual, very sensible and I look forward to them being implemented in full and will continue to follow this matter in coming reports.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Auditor-General’s February 2013 report. First, I thank Frank McGuiness for his report and particularly for his support of the Public Accounts Committee. As Chair of the committee I heavily rely on Frank for his guidance and in-depth knowledge of the workings of government. He provides invaluable assistance to the PAC, and we all enjoy his company and having such open access to him. He makes himself available to me, to the committee staff, who I know appreciate his support, and to all members of the PAC. I can speak on behalf of colleagues on both sides of this House and say thank you because, Frank, I know you are the kind of guy who would be listening right now. On behalf of all of us, thank you very much. You provide crucial assistance to the Assembly, not just the PAC, by giving assurance regarding the quality of financial statements and the adequacy of performance management systems. The adequacy of performance management systems is a key one, and you and I have spoken at greater length about how important that area of the public service is.
The Auditor-General conducts a range of audits, including audits of financial statements, special audits directed by the Chief Minister and audits of performance management systems. Following the tabling of his reports, the Auditor-General briefs the Public Accounts Committee on issues arising and the committee will often seek further information from agencies. This most frequently occurs with audits of performance management systems where the Auditor-General highlights how agencies may improve their management. Frank always helps us identify issues where the PAC might need to scratch around a bit more and hold public hearings, so we value his findings in these various areas.
The committee’s current inquiry into the management of information and communication technology projects results from issues the Auditor-General raised about a number of such projects. That includes the PAC conducting inquiries into the Asset Management System, the Power and Water Corporation asset management system, and the Department of Health’s grant management system.
The Auditor-General’s February report covers 23 audits of financial statements conducted between 1 July and 31 December 2012. The Auditor-General gave a qualified audit for two agencies. There has been an ongoing issue with NT Build’s financial statements. The nature of the building approval process currently applying in the Territory gives rise to some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall under the Construction Industry Long Service and Benefits Act. NT Build acknowledges this qualification and is working to strengthen its ability to maximise levy compliance. It is also confident a high level of compliance is being achieved.
The second qualification in the report was in respect of the Land Development Corporation. The Corporation was deemed to be a Government Business Division for 2011-12. This meant, for the first time, it was required to submit financial statements for audit. Whilst the Auditor-General was satisfied with the reliability of the financial information provided for 2011-12, he could not satisfy himself about the reliability of financial information relating to 2010-11. The Auditor-General also noted some issues regarding the disclosure of related party transactions and internal audit processes. The corporation undertook to review its policies and commence development of its internal audit plan.
The Auditor-General also noted that the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission has reported operating deficits for each of the last three years and has liquidated financial assets in order to maintain adequate levels of operating cash. However, it is unlikely it can continue doing this beyond 2012-13.
As mentioned earlier, the Public Accounts Committee keeps a watching brief on all issues raised by the Auditor-General in his reports. If any questions arise about the adequacy of an agency’s responses to issues raised or their implementation, the Public Accounts Committee may seek further information from the agencies concerned, or hold hearings and inquiries into those matters.
Thank you again, Frank. No doubt we will see you very soon, and I commend the work of the Auditor-General.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak on the February Auditor-General’s report, which raised a number of matters pertaining to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, the Land Development Corporation and NT Build.
Today I would like to report on those matters raised by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General commented that the lack of a comprehensive fixed asset register means details about the assets and the extent to which they may represent a combination of a number of assets was not readily available. This may impair the Darwin Waterfront Corporation’s ability to manage and maintain its stock of assets and result in the under depreciation of assets, given individual assets may have different economic lives.
Progress since the report: the Darwin Waterfront Corporation assets review has been completed to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. This now allows the Darwin Waterfront Corporation to make an improved estimate of the depreciation of individual assets within the broader asset classification for the 2013 financial year. A Chief Financial Officer was appointed in March 2013 and will undertake improved financial management for the Darwin Waterfront Corporation.
Moving to the Land Development Corporation, the Auditor-General commented that whilst he was satisfied with the material accuracy of amounts recorded, he was unable to satisfy himself on the reliability of figures for the 2010-11 financial year. In addition, as a GBD, the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is not required to disclose contracts or transactions. It relied upon that exemption and elected not to disclose transactions with entities related to current or previous members of the board. Non-disclosure in financial statements of the relationships and transactions with related parties may result in those statements being misleading.
Given the nature of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation’s activities, the Auditor-General recommended it review its current policy of not disclosing related party relationships and transactions in its financial statements.
Progress since the Auditor-General’s report: the Land Development Corporation has reviewed the policy on conflict of interest. The land register has been updated and reconciled to the general ledger, and an internal audit plan has been developed. The conflict of interest policy and adequate disclosures has been addressed by the corporation to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. The conflict of interest policy is now in place. The 2012-13 audit has been undertaken and an unqualified audit report has been issued.
Moving to NT Build, the Auditor-General commented that the statutory obligation to notify NT Build of the commencement of a project rests with the developer. NT Build has implemented a number of mechanisms to help monitor compliance and identify leviable projects and, consequently, those liable to pay the levy, including monitoring projects where building permits under the Building Act are issued.
It is noted that not all types of construction work carried out in the Territory require a building permit. Due to the nature of the approval process within the Northern Territory construction industry, there exists some uncertainty regarding the ability of NT Build to identify all construction and maintenance projects that fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. As such, I am unable to satisfy myself as to the completeness of the $12 031 220 disclosed as contributions from levy payers in the comprehensive operating statement.
I can respond that NT Build reports the amendment of building regulatory provisions to require evidence that a project notification form has been lodged with NT Build before a building permit is issued. Such an amendment would greatly enhance levy compliance within the building control areas representing the majority of leviable construction works. In this regard, NT Build will continue to work closely with the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to pursue suitable amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act in order to strengthen NT Build’s ability to maximise levy compliance.
While the board notes the change to the current building approval regime will have a limited effect, it will enable NT Build to better concentrate its resources on identifying leviable construction undertaken throughout the non-controlled remote areas of the Northern Territory, including on mining sites and other categories of construction. Examples are civil works and some maintenance, as defined by the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act, not covered under the building regulatory provisions.
Notwithstanding the above, the board remains confident a high level of compliance is being achieved, although a level of uncertainty may always exist. As a consequence, NT Build continues to utilise and refine a range of mechanisms to identify construction projects throughout the Northern Territory.
In any event, where non-payment is being detected the board is taking a rigorous approach to debt collection, including legal action where necessary. Further, through the board’s strategic audit and levy compliance program, routine audits of selected construction projects are being conducted to ensure levy payers are declaring and remitting the correct levy.
Progress since the Auditor-General’s report: the amendment to building regulatory provisions to require evidence that a project notification form has been lodged is one of the issues included in the review being undertaken of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. A report will be provided by the government by mid-December 2013.
The portable long service leave scheme for construction industry workers in the Northern Territory has been operating for over eight years. I have approved a review of NT Build subject to further consultation with industry participants. A discussion paper has been provided to industry participants interested in operation of the portable long service leave arrangements in the Northern Territory. The discussion paper provides stakeholders with an overview and an opportunity to comment on key issues involved with the administration of the Northern Territory scheme. It also provides a snapshot comparison of construction industry portable long service leave scheme arrangements in other states and territories.
The review is being undertaken by retired long-term CEO and independent Chairperson of NT Build, Mr Barry Chambers. Stakeholder meetings commenced on 23 September 2013. Stakeholders were provided with a copy of the discussion paper and invited to provide a written submission by 31 October 2013. To date, meetings have been held with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory; Urban Development Institute of Australia (Northern Territory); the Minerals Council of Australia, NT Division; the Housing Industry Association, Northern Territory; the Chamber of Commerce NT; the Property Council of Australia, NT; the Department of Land, Planning and the Environment; the Department of Treasury and Finance; Master Builders Northern Territory; and the Civil Contractors Federation, NT, the scheme actuary.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I want to make some closing comments and touch on a few matters in the Auditor-General’s report.
Like others, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness, who has been the Auditor-General for a number of years and is a man of cautious reputation and mindfulness when it comes to the auditing process. I appreciate he sees as his primary client the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory parliament. Of course, people in the public need to be reminded that Frank McGuiness is not a public servant in the traditional sense that he works for the Northern Territory government; he is an officer of this parliament and, therefore, answers to this House, not ministers of the Crown That is as it should be, because part of the checks and balances in our Westminster system mean not only should government be responsible to this House, but this House should have a capacity to independently review, from time to time, the functions of government, hence, officers such as the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.
I wish to make some observations in relation to the Auditor-General’s comments on pages 56 and 57 of his report regarding the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and budget overruns. When I became the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, I became aware of a five-year agreement the former government had established with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. That five-year funding deal, in essence, went something like this, ‘We promise to pay you this much money and, if you need more, we will keep the options open and give you more’.
This was in the face of a KPMG report which was critical of the management and structure of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission in a number of areas. Several issues were visited by KPMG which then became manifest in the form of recommendations to the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
I determined, as Attorney-General, that I would not accept a five-year funding deal until I was comfortable with the fact the KPMG report had been implemented and its recommendations pursued. I note in last year’s annual report from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission there were two references to the KPMG report from the Director and the Chair of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, but there was no structural information about application of the KPMG report inside the body of the annual report. As a consequence, I determined we would deal with funding issues on a year-to-year basis.
The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission has the difficulty of any organisation dealing with the courts, where it is uncertain how it will spend its budget. A major case like the Niceforo case will put a substantial strain on an organisation like the DPP or the Legal Aid Commission. For that reason, I am anxious to ensure we continue a close working relationship with the Legal Aid Commission and ensure the KPMG report finds its way into manifested organisational change. In the meantime, funding will continue for the Legal Aid Commission. I look forward to a productive relationship with the Legal Aid Commission into the future.
I pick up on something the Leader of the Opposition said. Yesterday we had the unedifying experience of watching the member for Nightcliff, ably assisted by the Leader of the Opposition, launch an attack based on some pretty enfeebled information. The egg on face that resulted was remarkable. I have rarely seen such an ill-considered approach for attack on government by an opposition. I appreciate an opposition does not have the resources of government but, nevertheless, simple things like checking details are very important.
However, a little more than 24 hours later the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the public service leaking like a sieve and the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services was running over budget. Really? It demonstrates how mere utterance of a rumour – if it was that much – is sufficient for the Leader of the Opposition to say all types of things about corrections staff.
If corrections staff, or any other public servant leak information to the opposition through improper channels, it is a matter of discipline within a public service. The public service, of course, serves the government of the day.
However, we all appreciate that in the real world such information finds its way to opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition should have carefully tested the information. I somewhat doubt it, but if there was such information forthcoming to the Leader of the Opposition, what would be the better way to proceed, particularly while you are still smarting from the folly of the day before? An inquiry, a telephone call, an e-mail, even a question rather than an assertion? No, there was none of the above. There was just an assertion that the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services was running over budget.
I have been careful, as Minister for Correctional Services, to tell the commissioner we will do everything within our budgetary capacity. We will find ways to manage the systems and do everything we have to within the budgets provided. To Commissioner Middlebrook’s enormous credit, he has assisted in the introduction of policies which have, in some places, generated income for the department. I recently signed off on a document where the Northern Territory corrections industry, in its infancy, has already generated some $0.5m of income. We now have to go through the appropriate accounting processes to ensure that money is accounted for and re-diverted to the development of those industries even further, which is what we are trying to do.
I have made it clear to Commissioner Middlebrook that I want to place the Northern Territory’s corrections industry on a much more commercial footing, and we are engaging in those processes at the moment. The enormous resource that sits in our corrections system, largely untapped, will be tapped. The former government was making noises in this direction with the new prison, but my belief is you start here and now. The enormous resource I am referring to is in the prisons right now – labour – an enormously valuable resource in our community. Product prices across the community are linked largely to the cost of labour as well as material, and if you are in a service industry like government, more than half your budget goes on wages. Let us take that resource and see what we can do with it.
I do not believe in convict labour or slavery as a principle. However, if you can use that resource, but guide and train it, and in the process generate an income, you have an opportunity to do some spectacular things to make prisons run less expensively.
That is what we have started doing, and as time passes we will substantially increase our activity. The amazing thing is the mood change in the workshops from prison guard to prisoner has become more like an industrial workshop you find in Winnellie than the captor and captive environment you see in a prison. Why? Because both prisoners and prison officers realise they are working, in many respects, towards a common goal: producing good stuff which is commercially saleable, non-competitive with a Northern Territory manufacturing environment, and can be wholesaled into a retail market, thus supporting local shops with local product. It is a win all the way across the board.
For the record, I am not talking privatisation. I am not talking about privatising prison guard services or anything like that. I am talking about taking what is there and using it in a more commercial sense. Before any suggestion is made, I am not interested in privatisation. I am interested in the commercialisation of what we can make commercial as long as it does not compete with locals. That is what we will do. It is, however, in its infancy. I expect a good result from that productivity. In fact, Northern Territory corrections industries is something I am trying to logo at the moment. I am trying to get it through the right committee in government to ensure we can get the logo up. I wanted to call it ‘Hard Time Industries’, but it is the desire of the prisoners and prison officers to leave that. We will roll it out. It is about using the same money to do different things.
So the Leader of the Opposition understands this, I place on the record that the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services is currently undertaking a quarterly financial review and closely monitors its expenditure. It provides monthly reports to Treasury, the latest of which was last week. As at 30 September 2013, the Department of Correctional Services was $2.6m under budget. This represents an underspend of 7% of the allocated budget. There are various reasons why costs come down. Smaller prisoner numbers is one of the reasons, as well as effective application of government policy and management practices which see expenditure shrink.
We are developing an operating model and it will cost money to go into the new prison. Unfortunately, the budget was not put together for the move to the prison and, believe it or not, that will be a multimillion dollar exercise. We had to find money for that in the budget and will do it effectively and well. As things go at the moment, we will be in the new prison on time. In the meantime, we will continue being careful with our money.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to start being careful with the truth. Her assertion she is on the receiving end of information makes clear one of two things. First, she is not and thinks that by being flippant she can accuse the Department of Correctional Services of mismanagement, when in fact it is being managed better than one would expect. Second, she can come into this House relying on information without checking it, and as she did yesterday and again today, make an assertion based on a whisper, if anything at all. As a consequence, rather than checking her information, she has embarrassed herself, her leadership, and the Labor Party of the Northern Territory. Guys, you deserve better.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General and his staff.
As a member of parliament I follow the Auditor-General’s reports tabled in this House, and they give a very good record of important Territory business conducted. They represent a forensic bird’s-eye view. Not only do they provide a strategic audit, they also provide very clear recommendations for government to note, act on, and deliver the business of government more efficiently. That relates to not only the finances, but also the management systems. It is obvious, following the Auditor-General’s reports into the mega systemic changes relating to systems being designed, constructed and implemented into delivering public sector efficiencies, that two of these represent the asset management systems, two major projects in the last six years which have provided great challenges in many areas. They are big, ambitious, and, in regard to governance and delivering efficiencies, they will achieve their outcomes in the longer term, and that is quite evident in what the Auditor-General advises government.
Today I will talk about the asset management system for Power and Water Corporation, and will quote from the Auditor-General’s report, page 47, to define this system:
Audit Opinion, page 47:
That is exactly what the Auditor-General will and does provide. It is set out succinctly in the report. Quoting once again from page 47:
Not only does the Auditor-General highlight the significant increase in cost in delivering this major information and communication technology, the report also talks about the time frames and time blowouts which are, once again, reflecting these major system-wide changes.
It is pleasing to note, once again on page 47, the Auditor-General says:
It represents work in progress, the challenges, the grand scale, and also represents the real and new areas of information and communication technology and their application to assets and asset management systems which will deliver the efficiencies of the future.
In regard to this area of the August Auditor-General’s report, there is no doubt the report indicates cost overruns, delays and challenges. However, it is also important to note it is on a time line, is delivering in an area never delivered in before, and it is nice to know the Auditor-General will continue to track implementation of these major systems.
It is also important to put on the public record the landscape of Power and Water at the time. There is no doubt the Power and Water Corporation took a big bite of new systems development. They were ambitious, innovative, it was new technology, but their existing landscape emerged as one of the major challenges. When I say existing landscape, it relates not so much in this case to accepting credit where credit is due, but taking responsibility for previous systems management. You cannot get away from the fact Power and Water Corporation assets were run down, and that relates to a shared responsibility. However, let us get reality onto the public record in 2013, discussing the implementation of this major new system for the Power and Water Corporation.
We are talking about a 27-year history of the conservatives, a CLP government, and a seven-year time frame of the Labor government when it won government in 2001. That is the balance in accepting responsibility and both sides should accept responsibility. Regarding those assets, it came to the fore in 2008 when Territorians realised generation to a degree, but more so the networks and transmission we were operating, was in excess of 30 years old. This came to light in the greater Darwin area.
That landscape was a challenge for the Labor government to address. The independent inquiry into the Casuarina Zone Substation and substation maintenance across Darwin by Mervyn Davies of 4 February 2009 highlighted the detail around Power and Water Corporation’s assets at a time a major new innovative technology was being implemented in the form of the assets management system.
On page 3 of that report of the independent inquiry there is an interesting paragraph which I will quote:
That was important information taken on board by the previous government and, consequently, it was a period of major infrastructure investment. That investment could not be avoided; it was needed and welcomed. The Casuarina Zone Substation event highlighted the dire nature of the Power and Water Corporation’s assets in the generation, production and transmission of power throughout the Northern Territory.
I considered it important to discuss that today. It was certainly a big wake-up call for the Territory and a challenge for whichever government, because we cannot go backwards, we have to go forward.
This new government has set a new course for the Power and Water Corporation. They have their ideas. The Treasurer has an economic rationalist approach to this and has set a course. Some interesting questions were posed in the House last week around this issue, and we hope to extract more accurate information about the course the new government has set. We have our plan and Labor values we bring to the table about what we consider an essential service. The new CLP government has a different plan altogether.
To sum up, the experience across all jurisdictions has indicated major IT projects like Power and Water Corporation’s asset management system are vulnerable to delays and cost overruns. It is, therefore, important that up-front design and constant monitoring is carried out, and the Auditor-General points that out. I am sure there are many lessons learnt from the project and, in general, the other areas of implementing major information communication projects that fuse the management of assets, plant and equipment, and the systems that produce the services our community needs and desires. The lessons from this project will also be valuable.
I thank the Auditor-General for pointing them out and painting that picture. As we move down this path into other areas of implementation, those lessons on how to do things better will be very important. It has to be discussed in the context of CLP and Labor governments sharing responsibility. There also has to be bipartisan agreement that we will get it right. It is a bipartisan agreement that has stalled in the debate as to Labor values around essential services of power, water and sewerage, and the Liberal values around commercialisation and profit-making in all areas of government, including the Power and Water Corporation. It is reassuring to know we have the Auditor-General and his department continually monitoring and reporting, and guiding government with an independent view. I thank the Auditor-General for his report and the opportunity to comment on it in parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I asked the Attorney-General if this would be adjourned and he said, ‘No, we will clear this up today’. It has not been in front of us very long. Compared to the time the February document has been on the table, this is a short time to comment. I glanced through the document recently and reminded myself of several issues the Auditor-General had concerns about that I wanted to mention.
As other speakers have, I thank the Auditor-General for the hard work he and his staff do in ensuring government is accountable through this independent body.
One area I was concerned about was the Department of Health’s aeromedical contract. The Auditor-General noted that even though there were many findings and recommendations from a July 2005 risk management services review of the aeromedical retrieval service, some of those recommendations were not happening when the new contract came into being. He said this was disturbing given these recommendations were aimed at establishing control frameworks for managing the contract and processing associated payments.
It leads to questions about the department’s ability to manage contracts given the eight years since the RMS review. This was a big contract and it took a long time to be approved. It was an important contract and there was much discussion in parliament relating to whether we should have a single or twin-engine aircraft. I remember getting representatives from a company in South Australia, from memory, Pilatus. They were promoting their brand of aeroplane saying it was very reliable. Others were saying the twin-engine was more reliable but more expensive.
There was a lot of discussion in relation to the aeromedical contract, so it was interesting to see the comments from the Auditor-General. In his key findings he said:
The Auditor-General mentioned some difficulty in getting retrieval statistics. That is surprising as well. On page 34 of the report, under Retrieval Statistics, he says:
The documentation also lists the top referral sites. It is surprising. You would think every time a plane took off for a location in the Northern Territory, that location would automatically be included in the department’s database. I do not believe I am wrong, but it appears the Auditor-General obtained the information from CareFlight itself, which was giving an NT aeromedical efficiencies presentation. They had the details but the department did not seem to. It says there were 2029 patient retrievals, but the list provided through CareFlight cites 1970 patients.
I do not know how that all fits, but I hope the department has data on where the planes are landing and taking off, what time of year and how many patients. That information should have been readily available for the Auditor-General.
The department has commented on some of the concerns and said an internal review, supported by the audit findings and recommendations, has resulted in a dedicated focus on major contract management as part of the new services framework. I will not go into that, but it highlights the importance of the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General raised some fairly serious issues about the ability to ensure there are no overpayments, and also mentioned a lack of retrieval statistics being easily available. It is hoped next time the Auditor-General reports on the aeromedical service contract those matters are fixed. This contract is worth $27m, so it is not a cheap contract for the government to operate – to ensure the contract is running efficiently and there are no overpayments.
The other issue is the Northern Territory Major Events Company. Last night I mentioned the importance of the World Solar Car Challenge. It was mentioned to me there is a chance the Northern Territory government might drop this event. I do not know if that has anything to do with the company reporting a significant loss of $296 374. The Auditor-General said some of that was because the Arafura Games were cancelled, which had a material effect. He also mentioned that the Alice Springs Masters Games and the World Solar Car Challenge are biennial. It would concern me if that event dropped off the major events calendar.
Except for what the Auditor-General said, this might be a one-off loss. If you take into account that those events are biennial, the cancellation of the Arafura Games may be the one-off cause of why Northern Territory Major Events Company lost money.
He mentioned that the Northern Territory Major Events Company Pty Ltd has not valued or recorded in-kind contributions received in the statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 30 June 2012:
The Auditor-General said the company received significant non-monetary contributions from suppliers and volunteers during events held in the year ended 30 June 2012. The company was not able to provide information detailing the nature of the services it received which would permit a reliable value to be placed upon time contributed to the company by volunteers. He said:
I presume there will be a response from Major Events. There is none in this report, so perhaps in the next review we could have a response from the Major Events Company.
The member for Barkly spoke about Power and Water and the asset management system. We know there were many problems associated with that, so I will not go into it. The PAC is still looking at the matter.
I am glad the Auditor-General looked at my complaint about a letter which went to the public. A number of people asked what the letter was about. The letter went out in August 2013, prior to the election. A few people asked me whether the contents were accurate or not. I told the Chief Minister it would be nice to send the letter to someone independent. The Auditor-General looked at the allegations and I am pleased he has. He reported on the contents of the letter:
That is what it is all about; an independent person looked at it. There were many issues at that time about the Gonski report. I thank the Auditor-General for giving his independent view of the document. I am pleased we have a body to look at matters and report back to parliament. I thank the Auditor-General for that as well.
Madam Speaker, I would have liked more time to look at this and give it a more thorough going over. However, that is not the case so I will leave it at that. Those are my comments about the Auditor-General’s report and I thank him for bringing this to the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will not dwell on this a great deal. The Auditor-General has been his usual thorough self. Once again, I thank him for his diligence and effectiveness in this area.
He has commented particularly on the Department of Health, the Menzies School of Health Research, the Power and Water Corporation, and a number of other agencies. I am aware of the minor issues he found in a number of departments relating to water control mechanisms. However, he has not sought to expand on them in any substantial way, and I am referring to page 57 of the report. I trust the deficiencies he describes have been dealt with internally and, I assume, to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General.
Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to thank the Auditor-General for his efforts. We can get on with the business of this House.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 26 March 2013.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this debate, not so much to focus on the statement but the extraordinary world view the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, seems to have of the financial situation in the Northern Territory.
I love the way she argues she returned a surplus in the year debt grew. Anyone who knows anything about budgeting knows if you return a surplus, debt shrinks; if you return a deficit, debt grows. Surplus means you have spent less than you earned, and deficit means you have spent more than you have earned.
It is a wonderful expression of voodoo economics where you can find a former Treasurer who relies on the qualification of an operational surplus but, nevertheless, relies on it to somehow convince members it is a surplus. Voodoo economics is all you can call it. The product of voodoo is a zombie. If this parliament has ever generated an economic zombie, it would have to be the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition.
I cannot tell you how often I sat, as shadow Treasurer, opposite her in the estimates process and asked about the forecasts of budgetary expenditure in the past. She steadfastly and stridently asserted those forecasts were, essentially, a form of concrete. Of course they are not, because you cannot know, particularly as you forecast into the outer years, a set of numbers you project four years in advance will occur at the time. Nevertheless, year in, year out in the estimates process, she said, ‘No, all this is concrete. This will happen.’ Until it suited her to change her language and we heard the $5.5bn projected debt is a mere projection. You cannot rely on that, it is a forecast. That is an interesting change in position and indicative of the way the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, sidesteps issues.
The forecast she gave in her last budget was based on everything that is known. What is not known, more often than not for three or four years in advance, is how much a government will earn. What is known and capable of being known, generally speaking, is how much a government will spend. That is called planning, and is a process the new government had to go through when we introduced the mini-budget to start dragging ourselves off the precipice, the brink, the chasm of debt the former government was taking us into.
The projected debt of $5.5bn was exactly how much the former Treasurer expected us to be in debt by in four years’ time. With great pain and difficulty, we, through the mini-budget process, took us to a place where we would hit a surplus in four years’ time so we could see debt stop growing. Under the new Chief Minister, that has been pushed out a couple of years because of the enormous pressure that places on the Northern Territory community. It still concerns me that despite the fact we have substantially decreased that future debt in the forward estimates, we still have a debt that is growing this year, next year, the year after, and for years to come.
If we argue for any form of restraint the shrill response from members opposite is we are being reckless. I heard the Treasurer say earlier the children of the future will be paying for our debt of today. He made references to Greece, Spain, Portugal and other countries which saw the credit card as a vehicle to keep touching the well and no consequence would flow from it. Anyone who runs a household knows you cannot continue to rack up debt on the credit card whilst your income is static or shrinking.
Sooner or later the car loan, the credit card, the loan for the last holiday, the loan for the boat in the back yard and the house loan will all catch up with you, particularly if your income shows no appreciable sign of growth. If we understand it in the household, why on earth can we not understand it at government level? Clearly, governments struggle with this concept.
The United States is in the throes of an extreme manifestation of these principles with the Republican Party resisting supply bills and the federal government about to run out of money. Moreover, another piece of legislation required to be passed in the United States is a bill lifting the debt threshold so it can go into more debt to continue paying for its expenditure. If you look at Greece, where people are marching up and down the streets, you see the final manifestation of what happens when a country relies on the credit card because you end up paying so much in interest, the moneylenders demand the money be repaid, and you have to find that money.
One of the annoying things about debt is when you start repaying money you have to repay it first. If you have kids to feed and a credit card debt or car loan and choose not to pay it because you are feeding your kids, the creditors will not say, ‘That is a social responsibility of the parent; we will not take the car back’. They will take the car back; they are not a charity.
To expect lenders to act as charities is nonsense. Whether they are lenders in the commercial or international environment, the money must come from somewhere. It does not come out of the ether. It has to be generated in wealth somewhere and large slices of the money being borrowed by the United States, Europe, Australia and jurisdictions like ours are sourced from China. They are very good at doing the one thing we have become very bad at in the western world: saving.
Save is a four-letter word according to many people in modern economics. They say, ‘All you have to do is borrow a bit more’. We are nowhere near the perilous situation of the United States, Greece, Portugal or any of those countries. For that reason we need not go to extraordinary lengths to rein in our spending. Nevertheless, we must retard the growth of our debt and reach a point where it stops and gets smaller over time.
Peter Costello, former Treasurer of Australia – I spoke to him about this not long ago – said for every year of debt growth you can expect to spend four years paying it back. If you do the sums on that, with the debt growth we have projected because of the legacy items handed to us by the former government, that is 24 years of scratching back that debt before we can get our debt levels down.
The frustrating thing about the former government is they had the opportunity. Post-2001, when the GST was introduced, was a time of enormous wealth for this country. During that period, two governments stood out in this country. One was the Howard Liberal government, which took its debt level down to zero, and the other was the Gallop Labor government in Western Australia, which took its debt level to zero.
The borrowing capacity of the federal government in recent times, and the Western Australian government, to see their way through the GST was built on the fact previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, had understood the necessary but simple principle that in the good times you save, in the bad times you borrow.
The legacy left by the former government was in the bad times you spend; in the good times you spend even more. That would not be so bad, except in the bad times you spend on the credit card and in the good times you spend on the credit card even more. How can that be a sensible approach? As this government finds savings in a number of areas, changes its management systems and those things, what is the response from the irresponsible ones on the other side of the Chamber? They screech and howl about us responding to the legacy item we were left with. If we do not respond, who will? Them? Not a chance. They will not respond in any sensible way.
Eventually it reaches the point where credit agencies say, ‘Your AA+ rating will go down to AA, then down further’. It then becomes more expensive to raise credit, which means you spend more money on interest payments.
As things are tracking at the moment, the chances are in the not-too-distant future we will be paying $1m in interest payments every day. The Education minister has said on more than one occasion how he would love to be in a fiscal situation, as a member of government, to go to a school every and say ‘Here is $1m for your school’, or walk into a police station somewhere around the NT and say, ‘Here is $1m for improved police services’, and ‘Here is $1m for improved health services, and ‘Here is $1m for improved other services’. We cannot do that because that money has to go to somebody who has nothing to do with the Northern Territory other than lending us money.
This is the voodoo economics the former Treasurer thought acceptable. She said increasing our debt situation in the current environment was sustainable. No, it was not. You cannot argue that increasing debt to the end of your forward projections is sustainable. ‘We will bring the budget back into surplus at some point’ is the promise.
I wonder what my bank would do if I said, ‘Yes, I will start paying back the increasing credit card at some point. I cannot tell you when it will happen.’ What bank would accept that? Yet governments of both persuasions, particularly the former Labor government, think you can spend your way out of problems with no repercussions. Of course there are.
I do not want to end up in the situation Greece has, or Spain, or Portugal, the so-called PIGS. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, PIGS, an acronym made up by economists during the GFC. That malaise is still there and still a threat to the international financial marketplace. If the Americans cannot get their gear together in the next few days there is another calamitous potential threat to the international marketplace. Sooner or later you have to pay it back, it is as simple as that.
It has just popped into my head, but I will give you another parallel. You forever hear arguments about social justice, particularly from the members opposite. The taking of Aboriginal land and those things has to be paid back, and they make strong emotional comments about how things have to be paid back to people who have lost out. How will we pay back to the children just born or yet to be born? How do we pay that debt, because they will have to pay the debt we are raking up now? The same emotional argument should apply because we are biting into their freedom, liberty and capacity to build a future so we can satisfy our most immediate needs. It is precisely the same argument, but it falls flat because it is money, and money is what economists and economic rationalists think about.
Madam Speaker, it is what I think about because I am an economic rationalist. The only counterpoint to economic rationalism is economic irrationalism, and that is preached by Labor parties around the world. They think the budget of a jurisdiction is an issue you deal with like health, education, law and order and those things. It is not just another issue, it is a fundamental and core issue. If you want to deal with health, law and order and other issues, you have to pay for them. You can rack it up on the credit card, as done by the former Labor government, or you can live within your means. That is the only truly sustainable way anybody, any jurisdiction, any household can run itself and a budget. Get your budget right and you can deliver those services. If you do not get your budget right, you are taking away from people into the future just as if you were stealing from them today.
For that reason, I am grateful for the change of government. Whilst I realise this government had to make some difficult decisions in recent times, I support those decisions because it is necessary to contain what is and has been happening for a long time.
The former government failed to return the Territory’s debt situation to zero when they had the opportunity. They paid off a little, but nowhere near enough. When times went bad, as they invariably do, they already had a debt and had to start borrowing again. This government has inherited that legacy, and this government has to struggle with that ongoing situation every day.
Madam Speaker, it would be fine if the slate was cleared after every change of government, but that is not how the world works. That is a fantasy, as is the fantasy the former government called sensible fiscal management. It has never been sensible fiscal management; it has always been fiscal recklessness. I am grateful for the opportunity to address it. However, it concerns me that by the time we reach a point where we can address it the mob opposite might be in power.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I held the position of Treasurer of the Northern Territory for approximately six months. The experience of coming into government after 11 years of a Labor government will always be marked in my mind as one of the most memorable periods of my life. One of the most prominent parts of that period was uncovering the mess left by Labor.
At the time, we sought the assistance of various people who formed the Renewal Management Board. Those gentlemen worked long and hard trying to unravel and uncover the mess left by many years of Labor. Those men were distinguished characters from the political past in the Northern Territory – former Under Treasurers and people who held very distinguished positions in the public service of the Northern Territory.
Even with those people around us the task was always going to be extremely difficult because what we found was a lot worse than Labor laid claim to. We have all reiterated it. Even today, every day of parliament, we talk about the escalating deficit we were left and the projected $5.5bn worth of debt under a continuing Labor government.
Thankfully, we are not like Labor. We are responsible when it comes to management of our finances and have worked hard to trim back our spending. In doing so we have demonstrated extraordinary courage, something Labor is not familiar with when it comes to not spending any more money. We cannot clock any more on the public credit card or put any more pressure on the Northern Territory than that already put there by the former Labor government.
It is very tempting to keep spending because people like you when you do. The public think it is great if you spend and spend. They do not like it when you make tough decisions about trimming back funding, and making difficult economic decisions around what we need, what we can do without, what we will plan for in the future.
Under Labor, people were indulged, to some extent, because Labor never said no. It was not part of their repertoire or vocabulary; it was all about spend and worry about it tomorrow. Knowing full well they would not win another election, one could say they went berserk. Their commitments to the people of the Northern Territory were unrealistic and have left us in more than a pickle.
I understand the enormity of the job faced by the current Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim. It is an extraordinarily difficult job in itself, without having to deal with the difficult mess Labor left us. The member for Fong Lim has certainly stepped up. He is strong and courageous and has set us on a path of reform.
We are still committed to our election promises. We are committed to sustaining a high quality of life for Territorians, but are not committed to burdening them with an enormous amount of debt with an enormous amount of interest. Every day in the Northern Territory we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, compliments of the former Labor government. What the average person does not realise – I did not realise it before coming into politics – is the financial pressure of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every day in interest means we miss out. It means we do not have that $500, $600 or $7000 to pay for schools, roads or all the things we value in life.
There is an opportunity cost, an economic cost, and Labor made that decision, whether it was intentional or not. I believe it was mismanagement and total ignorance, but they decided Territorians would spend that money on interest, not the things that count: roads, lighting, school vouchers, new hospitals and things we all want and value. They decided to spend without any responsibility to the point where a significant proportion of our money, on a day-to-day basis, is being soaked up in interest repayments. On a micro level, when people get themselves into debt, when they clock up their credit card, they get stuck in the same cycle. They get stuck paying interest repayments only.
That is where we were heading under Labor, just paying the interest off and not making a mark on the debt. That is what our Treasurer is faced with at the moment. That is what I was burdened with when I became Treasurer in August last year. I willingly handed the baton to someone I admire and respect, who is doing a fine job
It is an extraordinarily difficult job. He requires the support of the whole team on this side of government, which he has, and also deserves the respect and support of people across the Territory. It is hard to conceptualise what we have been burdened with as a new government, but I can assure you it is not good, it is not an easy job, and it takes an enormous amount of conviction and courage, something Labor lacked.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. The Minister for Health brought back memories of what we inherited at that time, and the job she has now is an extraordinarily difficult one. I do not say this in a negative way, but I remember seeing the wear on her face during the time she was made aware of the problems. Everybody in the Cabinet was stunned when we realised the enormity of the problem we had inherited. The member for Araluen, the Minister for Health, had to come up with solutions and it was a difficult time for everyone. I pay due respect, and also pay due respect to the member for Port Darwin, our Attorney-General, who operated in the Treasury role in opposition. He did a fantastic job informing our side of politics what was happening. I feel somewhat humbled to be in this position after the members for Port Darwin and Araluen. They did exceptional jobs in the Treasury role, both in opposition and government.
I thank everybody for taking the time to comment on this important statement highlighting many of the issues facing the Northern Territory. It is a difficult time coming into government and finding a $5.5bn debt. As the Minister for Health said, it is nearly $1m a day the government makes in interest repayments. I imagine Wayne Swan, the former federal Labor Treasurer, would have been happy with $1m a day in interest repayments when you have 23 million Australians to wash that through. However, with 230 000 Territorians, $1m a day in interest repayments is an enormous amount. Think about what you can buy for $1m. A figure of $5m in a five-day working week is staggering. If someone goes to work for five days, the government has paid out $5m in dead interest payments. Imagine the roads that could be built with $5m, or ten houses.
The previous government put us into a housing and accommodation crisis in the Northern Territory, the likes of which have never been seen before. One million dollars a day would have gone a long way to solving that housing crisis – the additional public housing and the leverage you could get off $5m in a five-day working week, and the business you could have attracted to the Northern Territory. However, as the member for Araluen rightly pointed out, it was never in the interests of the previous government to look at getting maximum value for your dollar. It was all about spending money as an outcome. That is the Labor way.
The Attorney-General, in his contribution to this debate, made me aware that a Labor government in Australia had paid down debt. The Western Australian Gallop Labor government reduced debt to zero. I am stunned by that, but who says, ‘Never say never?’ That is not the case anywhere else. Every state in Australia that has experienced a Labor government knows that when it comes to managing the economy they are not very good. They are appalling at managing their finances and have no problem spending other people’s money on things that do not matter.
The last debate was in relation to the Auditor-General’s August 2013 report. Some interesting things in that show how the previous government handled finances. Looking at the asset management system of Power and Water Corporation – Power and Water Corporation is a topical subject at the moment. The Opposition Leader likes to confuse Territorians and create a concern for them, suggesting everything at Power and Water is hunky dory and there is no need to reform anything. However, I draw the attention of the House to the section in the Auditor-General’s report about the asset management system within the Power and Water Corporation. This is not the asset management system of government we have heard about, which is a dog’s breakfast and probably one of the biggest messes we inherited in government and have to find a way to fix, but what happened with the Power and Water asset management system is amazing.
In 2006, the AMS project commenced at the Power and Water Corporation. The business case was initially approved by the board and the government for a project cost of $15m to support the implementation of a standard off-the-shelf software solution. It was launched on 21 August 2012, an interesting time – it took them six years to do it. In the meantime, in July 2009, a revised business case was put forward and that $15m budget grew to $27.4m.
A further business case was put to the board and approved in August 2010 costing $32.4m. By that stage it had doubled, and they planned to go live by March 2011. Another revised project schedule was approved by the steering committee in November 2011, with a revised business case valued at $43.7m. This was originally a $15m project. They made decisions all the way through. It was, as at December 2011, $43.7m with a go live date pushed out to March 2012.
In March 2012, the time of the go live date, the government again allowed Power and Water to approve $53.58m to the project. In July, just a couple of months later, $57.8m was approved – $57.8m up from a budget of $15m. It finally went ahead on 8 August 2012, and the Auditor-General said on page 50 of his report:
Thank you to everybody who contributed to this debate. I hope the Chamber notes the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report.
The NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report paints an encouraging picture of the size and performance of the service over the past year.
Let me talk you through some of the highlights. The report shows, in just 12 months, the Country Liberals are already making significant improvements in police recruitment. During the reporting period, the NT Police Force saw a significant injection of additional staffing to the police ranks of 184 new police recruits. This, for me, is perhaps the most encouraging result of all because it delivers on an election commitment to build our police service and help Territorians feel more secure. The community should be heartened that there are now more police on the beat, keeping our streets safe across the Territory.
Twelve fire recruits also joined the service during 2012-13, adding significantly to our firefighting capabilities. An additional Assistant Police Commissioner has been created in Alice Springs, something warmly welcomed by the community.
Coming from Alice Springs, I know how concerned the community was about crime levels under the former Labor government. I am pleased to say we are turning that around with additional resources in personnel.
Significant infrastructure developments have occurred, including a purpose-built special operations command headquarters, new police stations and housing at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak, and a new purpose-built facility at Berrimah for the NT Fire and Rescue Service and the NT Emergency Service.
Over the 12-month reporting period we saw a reduction in total property offences reported across the NT of 8.4% on the previous year under Labor. There were also 7.7% fewer victims of property offences compared to 2011-12. In 2012-13 there were fewer complaints against police, reflecting the professionalism I have come to expect and respect amongst our officers.
During the reporting period, almost 165 000 drivers were breath tested, which was significantly above the performance target of 150 000. Additionally, 1.258 million mobile speed camera checks of vehicles were conducted, which was also significantly above the performance target of one million.
The NT Fire and Rescue Service exceeded the majority of performance measures targeted, including the number of community education awareness programs delivered. Raising community awareness is a vital part of their work and this result deserves special mention.
During the reporting period, the NT Emergency Service also conducted 32 training courses and issued 183 qualifications.
In summary, I thank our hard-working Police, Fire and Emergency Service personnel for their hard work over the past year. The professionalism of the work you do for Territorians, often in the darkest hours, is to be highly commended. Rest assured your efforts to keep the community safe do not go unnoticed.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government, in light of the serious violence in Mitchell Street, introduce changes similar to the measures introduced in Newcastle which have been shown independently to have:
1. reduced alcohol-related non-domestic assaults by 33% over the last five years, a 26% reduction in hospital ED admissions
2. 82% community support for the small reduction in late trading hours
This motion is about doing something positive to bring a change for the better. That change will require both government and opposition to show courage and support some relatively minor changes to licensed venues in Mitchell Street.
This motion is also about the culture of alcohol in our society and the influence the alcohol industry has on our politicians and political parties. It is if we care about the police who have to keep the peace in Mitchell Street and who are on the front line when it comes to alcohol-fuelled violence. It is about whether we care for our paramedics who are also on the front line in Mitchell Street, dealing with injured people who are intoxicated and violent. It is about whether we care enough for the nurses at RDH who have to deal with the victims of alcohol-fuelled violent incidents and the associated trauma. It is about whether we care for the doctors who do their best to repair and bring back to health the same victims, and for the doctors and police who have to pass on the dreadful news to a loved one that someone has died. It is about whether we care about a community that wants to stop violence of any sort, especially alcohol-fuelled violence, and especially in the CBD.
In the end, it is about whether the Chief Minister, his Minister for Alcohol Policy, the Leader of the Opposition, and the rest of us care more about the alcohol industry lobby which, Australia-wide, uses its considerable influence over political friends in high places to ensure protecting the alcohol industry is more important than protecting our doctors, nurses, paramedics and police, and many young Territorians who are, unfortunately, caught up in an alcohol culture that permeates much of our society today, and protecting the law abiding citizens who want Mitchell Street to be a safe place for a night out.
You get some idea of what the government is doing or not doing to make a difference from the answers to questions in these parliamentary sittings about alcohol-fuelled violence in the CBD. The answers show an unwillingness to take on the liquor industry, and a lack of leadership by the government to deal with this problem.
The Chief Minister admits the violence in Mitchell Street has much to do with alcohol. He says police and the dog squad had to make five arrests after 4 am, and the police had to clean up the mess after drunken fights and even closed down Mitchell Street. He says there are lockouts at 3 am. He admits the statistics show things have not improved. He says he wants to make Mitchell Street a safe place for families. Should it not be a safe place for everyone? He says if things do not improve they will bring in drastic measures but did not say what those measures would be, and made no mention of the licensees’ responsibilities.
He says Territorians need to drink responsibly, a message that is obviously not getting out there, but alcohol is a core social value. He wants the police to solve the problem. He wants the police to protect the liquor businesses so they can operate as they do now.
In reply to a second question about alcohol-fuelled violence in Mitchell Street he said police conducted Operation Omaha last year. That title was last used in the invasion of German occupied France; it must have had some similarities. We saw more than 50 police working on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. He said he was pleased to see a strong police presence. He said six arrests were made, two for assaults and 28 people were put in the watch house. The Chief Minister then made this classic statement:
However, these high visibly targeted operations are only part of the response. Police are out in the CBD every weekend with regular patrols with assistance from mounted police and the dog squad. He goes on to say:
I will not answer that cop out. I will quote from an article in the NT News about Vince Kelly, President of the Police Association, dated 14 October:
Further on:
I could not have put it more succinctly myself.
The government is too close to the liquor industry and is avoiding its responsibility of getting to the cause. It waits until the problem explodes then invades the CBD with Operation Omaha at taxpayers’ expense. The Chief Minister said he would get tough but does not say much except banning notices, unless he meant more Operation Omahas, and they will not last. Imagine the cost. We have a budget deficit! Fifty police on late night duties every weekend; police have better things to do than pick up the mess on Mitchell Street caused by others. By the way, if you need 50 police to patrol Mitchell Street, does that not say something is wrong?
The Minister for Alcohol Policy mentioned the Mitchell Street alcohol accord on the 7.30 Report and described it as flimsy. That is definitely an understatement. Today we had the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill legislation, a funny name, but it is trying to do something after the event. Today’s motion is about doing something before the event to reduce the chances of violence happening. To top it off, the government wants to introduce bracelets on banned drinkers, an idea that would not only be extremely costly to operate, but a waste of valuable resources, and highly impracticable. It is a BDR where police will be responsible – more taxpayers’ money and wasted resources, whereas the original BDR put the onus on licensees.
The reality is none of this will make much difference and there is no proof it will be effective. It is part of a mishmash of wishful thinking that deflects the public’s attention away from the real issue. All these proposals move responsibility from the licensee to the taxpayer. It deflects responsibility away from the alcohol industry. The government does not want to upset them – small town, influential people, good mates needed to win the next election. They have businesses to run so do not rock the boat. If you do not believe the government wants to be sweet with the AHA, remember the annual awards dinner earlier this year. I quote from an ABC News item of 14 May 2013:
Of course, the Minister for Alcohol Policy was also at the dinner. He was reported as saying:
The statement from the ABC also included the following comment:
Do you really believe that after what the AHA chief executive officer said?
After reading the comments from the Chief Minister and his deputy, who is also the Minister for Alcohol Policy, do you really believe they are serious about the problems of alcohol in Mitchell Street? They are too close to the cause. However, tonight they have the opportunity to do something. To give every member of parliament a chance to do something positive, I hope both leaders will allow their members a conscience or free vote on this issue.
For those who do not know about the changes in the Newcastle CBD, here is a summary. In 2007-08, local police commander, Superintendent Charlie Haggett, ex-Manly rugby league player, and Tony Brown, a local businessman and solicitor who voluntarily led and represented over 150 city residents, small businesses and concerned citizens lodged undue disturbance complaints with the Chair of the New South Wales Liquor Administration Board and the Chief Magistrate of New South Wales Licensing Court, Mr David Amarti for changes to licensing conditions to all 14 trading post-midnight hotels and nightclubs in the Newcastle CBD. After prolonged legal proceedings, Mr Amarti agreed to the restrictions.
These restrictions have been changed slightly, but this is what they are today. I can table a copy for members if they wish.
The Newcastle intervention – under trading restrictions, reduced trading hours:
All premises are prohibited from trading later than 3.30 am, originally 3 am.
These relatively minor changes in late trading hours have come under a great deal of independent examination and scrutiny, with findings announced by the University of Newcastle School of Medicine and Public Health, and Professor Miller from Deakin University. Tony Brown reported these independent findings at a recent conference:
I refer people to a recent study by Professor John Wiggers from the University of Newcastle.
The vast majority of 2008 Newcastle late trading venues remain open. During 2008-11, 13 businesses closed in Geelong in comparison with two in Newcastle, and one of those was burnt down. Patrons reported spending more money on average in Newcastle on a night out than in Geelong. In Geelong, Deakin University research teams were unable to conduct interviews before 11.30 pm because of the lack of patrons, whereas Newcastle teams successfully conducted interviews from 9 pm because the patrons were already out – unquantified but significant reductions in public health, policing and related costs.
It should be noted that Professor Miller from Deakin University said in some Victorian cities reliance on a lockout or curfew alone, without a reduction in late closing times, increased the level of violence.
These changes have strong support, especially from those on the front line in the local community. The Last Drinks Campaign is made up of the Police Association of New South Wales – no small association – the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives’ Association, Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Association Federation of New South Wales, the Health Services Union, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and Drink Tank have been strong lobbyists for change in New South Wales.
Here is the poster they are using to get their message out. It says, ‘They kicked and punched my partner as we tried to get him into the back of the ambulance. It’s just got to stop.’ Steve Pollard, paramedic.
This is what the Last Drinks Campaign says:
That is the end of the quote from the Last Drinks Campaign.
When opponents to this motion say, ‘You are whingers, wowsers, you are nanny state supporters’, as I heard the CLP say in the last election, they are denigrating the police, doctors, paramedics and nurses who see what goes on week in and week out.
Will the government suck up to the AHA by letting them off their responsibilities and, instead, waste our money and resources on flimsy alcohol codes, banning notices, bracelets, alcohol protection orders, more police picking up drunks, and more precious resources being used in our hospitals and ambulances dealing with the results of drunken behaviour in Mitchell Street?
Queensland is considering changes. The Courier-Mail on 18 September said:
Further on, the Courier-Mail said:
It reminds me of Vince Kelly here:
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research stated in a paper on 2 December 2009 titled The Impact of Restricted Alcohol Availability in Newcastle:
In Christchurch, the city council has proposed a one-way door policy after 1 am for bars, and a 3 am closure to prevent and reduce alcohol-related harm. Scott Weber, who I met on a trip to New South Wales a few years ago, is President of the Police Association of New South Wales. He said in a 2010 media release:
It is not only interstate people who support these changes; it is Territory frontline workers, the people I expect us to support: the NT Police Association, The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the AMA, and the union covering the paramedics, United Voice. We have already heard what the police association said, and what Vince Kelly said on the ABC recently and it could not be clearer.
Let us hear what the United Voice Branch Secretary, Matthew Gardiner, had to say ...
Mr Tollner: What does he have to say?
Mr WOOD: He represents the paramedics. You laugh again like you laughed at the nurses, and that will be reported. He represents the paramedics …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Do not take that tone. Just because it is …
Mr Tollner: He also represents the Labor Party.
Mr WOOD: I am a neutral observer. This union represents the paramedics and Matthew Gardiner wrote this:
I hope you do not laugh, member for Fong Lim. I have a letter from Yvonne Falckh, Branch Secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. She says:
A letter from Peter Beaumont, NT Branch President of the Australian Medical Association says:
I have a letter from Phillip Carson, Associate Professor of Surgery at Royal Darwin Hospital and council member of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons saying:
Phillip Carson also raised some interesting matters:
Here are some more facts and figures from Phillip Carson:
I am sure we can update that. Do not forget the words of the AHA: it is not their responsibility.
There is more. Tony Brown led and represented local residents and small businesses in Newcastle to bring in moderate changes to closing times. That is what this is about, the responsible serving of alcohol referred to as the Newcastle direction. I will read part of what he said about the Chief Minister in regard to today’s motion:
By chance, last night I met a retired police officer while having dinner at Salvatore’s, now that we no longer have it at Parliament House. His name is Mick Brennan; he did not mind me using his name. He is a Territorian of 40 years, a copper of over 30 years. He is a member of the Retired Police Association and now a JP. He said, ‘I’ve seen it all in Darwin’, and he still sees it when, as a JP, he is filling in the paperwork after a big night on Mitchell Street. He is a no nonsense bloke, and when I said I was trying to introduce some changes to licensing hours in Mitchell Street, he was rapt. He supported the idea wholeheartedly and said earlier closing times were the only way to reduce violence. I believe he would have liked it to be tougher. Here is an ex-copper who knows what is going on, but will any of you listen to what he is saying? No, it is all about personal responsibility. What a cop out!
In summary, this debate is about standing up for frontline people in the community and seeing whether the government, the opposition and the rest of us are willing to put the foot down and say ‘enough is enough’.
The questions are: will the Chief Minister support his police force by supporting this motion which will lessen the physical risks police face when dealing with violent drunks? Will he keep sweet with the alcohol industry, remembering he said the government would do its best to support the liquor industry? Will the Minister for Alcohol Policy support a motion which will protect the community and workers by introducing some simple and reasonable changes, or will he side with the alcohol industry and support the statement problem drinkers are society’s problem, not the AHA’s?
Will the Minister for Health support a motion that will reduce the trauma and physical and verbal abuse paramedics, doctors, and nurses receive from violent alcohol-affected night clubbers? Will the minister support a motion which will reduce beds being taken up in hospital by people affected by alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence? Will the minister also support anything which reduces the effects of the abuse of alcohol, especially binge drinking, with its potential health risk now and into the future?
Will the Minister for Correctional Services support changes which reduce alcohol violent offences, meaning less work for our courts and fewer people in our prisons? Will the member for Port Darwin support these positive changes in his electorate?
Will the Minister for Community Services support the changes, especially as we know from the recent 7.30 Report that of the 1400 people on banning notices 80% were Indigenous? Will the minister support a motion that will go some way to helping her people?
Will both parties pledge not to accept any donations from the AHA? Will the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition allow a free vote on this motion to allow their members to be independent members of parliament for this one time? After all, is this a moral issue, not a business issue?
This is your chance to vote according to the irrefutable evidence I have highlighted tonight. It shows simple common sense and measured changes to the supply of alcohol, to lockout times and closing times, and has made a big difference to alcohol-fuelled violence where these changes have occurred.
This is your chance to take a lead in changing this alcohol culture which has ruled Mitchell Street and giving it back to the community to own once again. As Vince Kelly said, it is a chance to put people before profits. Remember Professor Miller from Deakin University said on the 7.30 Report last Friday, for every hour pubs are shut earlier there is a 20% reduction in assaults.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: The AHA says I do not know what I am talking about. I do not care what they say. People with a lot more standing than me, more knowledge than me, say this is the way to go. The evidence is before you from New South Wales Police; Royal Newcastle Hospital; Tony Brown; the New South Wales crime statistics; Professor John Wiggers from the University of Newcastle; Professor Peter Miller from Deakin University; K Kypri, C Jones, P McElduff and P Barker from the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle; the Last Drinks Campaign; the Queensland Attorney-General; and it is conclusive. You have head from NT doctors, nurses, police and paramedics, along with surgeon Phil Carson and retired policeman and JP Mick Brennan, who all want this change.
The Newcastle direction will make a difference. All that is needed tonight is for the NT government and the opposition to bite the bullet. I do not want to hear a response by members copied from the AHA standard manual of arguments against the Newcastle direction. I want a response which shows leadership and independence. Banning notices, alcohol protection orders, bracelets, and alcohol accords have all been spoken about or introduced to avoid one thing: the Newcastle direction.
If the government and opposition do not support this motion they are tied to the skirts of the alcohol lobby. If you believe I am too harsh, wrong, and that is not the case, then support your doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, law-abiding community and our young people, and support the Say No to Violence Campaign by supporting this motion. Do not follow the party line, do not follow the AHA line, break away and cast a free vote. This is an opportunity too good to be missed.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. This is one of the most harebrained things I have ever seen. I can inform the member for Nelson we will be supporting the community, which is what this government is most interested in.
It would be interesting to know the last time the member for Nelson was on Mitchell Street in the early hours of the morning or late at night. It would also be interesting to know how many publicans, licensees and people who visit these venues he has spoken to and what type of research he has done. Tens of thousands of people go out most Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights along Mitchell Street to one venue or the other and the vast majority – nearly 100% - behave responsibly, act properly, have a great time, enjoy the time out and go home feeling great. Perhaps they wake in the morning with a headache, but that is what happens when you party to all hours of the morning.
The member for Nelson would have us stop that. If you listened closely to the member for Nelson’s diatribe, most of the people he quoted, particularly the health practitioners and some police, all support prohibition. They do not want alcohol anywhere. Having been Health minister, the view of the Health department is to ban it all, stop it and wind up this terrible industry. People in that area deal with the small minority who present and they see, firsthand, the damage done. It is probably fair to say they are not interested in the entertainment side of our vibrant hospitality industry in the Northern Territory. What they see is the few who make it difficult for everyone.
The member for Nelson quoted Vince Kelly and Matthew Gardiner. You have to take things from Vince with a grain of salt because it is no secret he stood for preselection for Labor in the past. He is a true Labor man. Matthew Gardiner, without a doubt, is a true Labor man. These guys are smarting from the last election result; that is what is hurting them.
Most police I talk to have no problem with people enjoying themselves and having a good time. I do not know one person who has a problem, apart from the odd people who believe in prohibition. However, the vast majority support people having an enjoyable, good time.
The focus should be how to encourage more of that. How do we use that to complement our tourism sector attracting people to the Northern Territory and promoting the Northern Territory, rather than introducing measures detrimental to the Northern Territory?
The member for Nelson is a great believer in the Newcastle restrictions. He told us what the health professionals said about them. Basically, in 2008, restrictions were placed on 14 Newcastle hotels which included drink restrictions, 1 am lockout, 2.30 am or 3 am close, cease serving 30 minutes prior to closing, plans of management, cannot stockpile drinks, and required a dedicated responsible service of alcohol supervisor from 11 pm onwards. After appeal, I think an out-of-court agreement was reached to relax lockout and closing time by 30 minutes. Regardless, that was the Newcastle solution.
Regarding the effects of that, I have some different statistics to the member for Nelson. I have some information from a research organisation called Crosbie Warren Sinclair. Its report revealed that post the 2008 restrictions, nine of the 14 hotels closed, changed hands or went into receivership. On average, there was a reduction in turnover of 27.7% a week. That is not just on the nights, but weekly. There was a 21.7% reduction in revenue, a $22.5m decline in asset value and a reduction in staff in workforce of 22%.
The member for Nelson is probably happy to live with those statistics because the way he sees it, we are just a pack of violent rednecks who love grog and having a good punch up and breaking each other’s jaws. That is what the member for Nelson is painting Territorians as in his message: we cannot be trusted; we are pigs when it comes to alcohol consumption; we go out at night, flog the daylights out of each other and do not care about anything. It is Rafferty’s rules in the north, we are a pack of rednecks and we cannot be trusted.
I am used to that attitude coming out of Canberra, but am quite stunned at that attitude coming from someone in the Northern Territory, which is why I asked how many times the member for Nelson has been down Mitchell Street and seen what goes on. There are plenty of members in this House who have seen what goes on in Mitchell Street. I will not name them, but I can look at them. They know the vast majority of people go there, have a good time and cause no trouble to anyone, but for the sake of a few, the member for Nelson is quite prepared to penalise the many. It almost seems he has a vehement hatred of publicans and licensed premises the way he talks about these people.
Clearly he has not spoken to the licensees along Mitchell Street. I have, and I know the vast majority of them. I have made it my business to know them because I want to understand where they sit.
The member for Nelson seems to scoff and suggest that it is not the problem of hotels but the problem of the police or the community to clean things up. There is no one in society more impacted by these problems, apart from the victims, than owners of the establishments. They have the most to lose. To suggest they do not see alcohol-related violence along Mitchell Street has anything to do with them – have a word to a few of them about the measures they are putting in place to reduce as much of that behaviour as possible. No, the member for Nelson says, ‘I know best, I want to impose everything from above. Stuff what you guys want to arrange amongst yourselves, with the police, the government and a range of other stakeholders’. Forget all that. Let us just charge down the track to the Newcastle solution which saw pubs wound up, people going to the wall, people losing their jobs and the like.
In a wonderful world, perhaps the member for Nelson is enlightened and this is the silver bullet to solve every problem we have. They say, ‘The broken jaws’. I do not know how many broken jaws occur on Mitchell Street, but I doubt it is the sole location broken jaws occur in the Northern Territory. As I say, the member for Nelson is trying to paint Territorians as a pack of rednecks with no personal responsibility, who get drunk and bash each other up because fundamentally they do not care and that is their idea of a good time.
Member for Nelson, that is not the case. The vast majority of people go out for a good time, behave themselves, act responsibly and have an enjoyable time. They are well supported by the community and the businesses along Mitchell Street. A whole economy has developed along Mitchell Street. It is not just licensees; it is all the food outlets, etcetera, which complement each other. That is the idea of an entertainment precinct.
Like I say, the member for Nelson seems to be enlightened. This must be a great epiphany for the member for Nelson because he had four years with the previous government where he was kingmaker. He determined who would run government, who would be the Chief Minister, the terms, and what he demanded to keep the government in place. I do not recall him calling for Newcastle-style solutions in the CBD then. He had four years to get his way on anything, and not once did he stick his head above the parapet on Mitchell Street demanding the Chief Minister start closing pubs, clubs, and nightclubs early and impose draconian measures on them or he would join the CLP. Not once did I hear any talk of that. Not once did I see anything in his log of claims he put to the Labor government, which they had to meet, about trading hours of pubs along Mitchell Street. His motion today is full of self-righteousness, demanding a conscience vote like none of us have a clue, and suggesting we should penalise all Territorians for the actions of a handful. This guy is beyond a joke.
The government has a different approach to dealing with alcohol-fuelled violence and problems that can occur. We want to target the problem drunk. We are looking at ways and measures to target people – that rare breed of person who does not handle their alcohol properly and likes to fight. They are the people we are targeting, not legitimate businesses. We are not targeting people going out for a good time or everyday Territorians. We are targeting people who have a serious problem with alcohol. The member for Nelson scoffs at alcohol protection orders and mandatory treatment for drunks. None of these things matter. All we need to do is bring in Newcastle-style solutions and he will be happy.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is misleading the parliament. I did not oppose mandatory rehabilitation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could you please withdraw that comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I did not mislead parliament. I am offended by the suggestion I am misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, what was your claim?
Mr WOOD: He claimed I did not support mandatory rehabilitation of drunks, which I did. You are wrong.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear any of that. All right, he has had another epiphany and now supports mandatory treatment of drunks. He also supported the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register was a great example of penalising everybody for the sake of a few.
I recall him arguing like hell about the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Why are you moving away from the Banned Drinker Register to go to a mandatory treatment model?’ He wanted the Banned Drinker Register left in place. He did not want the mandatory treatment model. Now he has decided he supports the mandatory treatment model ...
Mr Wood: You are lying.
Mr TOLLNER: You have had your go. You threw a lot of allegations around and belittled everybody out there, anybody who owns a pub …
Mr Wood: Quack, quack.
Mr TOLLNER: … and you think that is okay. Well, good on you. You are entitled to your opinion, but other people are too.
Mr Wood: Don’t make it up.
Mr TOLLNER: You seem to think we are all a pack of redneck drunks who like nothing more than breaking each other’s’ jaws. What a funny world you live in out there in Howard Springs, member for Nelson.
Before you move a motion like this you should get out once or twice and look at Mitchell Street, talk to a few licensees, maybe have a chat to a few people at the AHA.
Mr Wood: Fifty police.
Mr TOLLNER: It might be like walking through the Gates of Hell when you go to the AHA office, and you might feel like Satan’s talking to you when Doug Sallis is sitting on the other side of the table, but it is not that bad.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please address your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I got caught up in the moment. The member for Nelson was throwing wild interjections across the Chamber and I could not help myself.
The point is the member for Nelson may well feel he is walking through the Gates of Hell when he goes into the AHA. He talks about big business getting their way with everything. Goodness me, most of those publicans and licensees are not what I would call big business. They are legitimate people trying to nut out a living, often mortgaging their houses and the like to leverage their way into business without being big business. Not too many Clive Palmers own pubs along the Mitchell Street precinct.
We have a different view in government. We want to work with licensees where we recognise they run legitimate businesses and are trying to earn a profit so those businesses can grow, employ more Territorians and, hopefully, provide a service and improve the amenity and lifestyle of all Territorians. Why would you want to close down an entertainment precinct? Only the member for Nelson, who likes living in the rural area, does not like it in the city, does not like being around people, wants to live in the sticks, wants to penalise all Territorians. It is crazy.
We have tried to take a very cooperative approach with these places. We are working closely with the Australian Hotels Association and with police. The licensing agency in the Department of Business is working closely with police and businesses. Members of parliament are talking with them, as is Darwin City Council, to come up with ways we can restrict, as much as humanly possible, the bad aspects of what happens in any entertainment area anywhere in the country. Where you have alcohol there will always be a handful of people who abuse it, whether they are out in the scrub drinking two or three cartons, as some of us have seen, or whether you are in a restaurant in Darwin or Mitchell Street. There will be people who abuse the situation. That is what we, and the Australian Hotels Association, are trying to crack down on. That is what police, Darwin City Council and this government wants to see gone.
We have been working with the licensees along Mitchell Street and now have a strengthened liquor accord. A few months ago the liquor accord was not greatly supported. I said it was a rather flimsy document that did not mean much to anyone. Unless you buy into something, it is very difficult to get people to support it.
In recent weeks an enormous amount of work has taken place between the AHA, the police, licensees along Mitchell Street and agencies of government to strengthen that liquor accord. Now, 100% of late night licensees have signed up to the CBD liquor accord and have agreed to drink promotion restrictions and other proactive and responsible initiatives to ensure their venues are safe and secure for their patrons.
It must be said, some venues have been unfairly blamed for some of the problems. Whilst I am not trying to down play the problems and circumstances, I want to put on the record some events that have occurred. One was a stabbing in front of Shenannigans Irish Pub on Mitchell Street a few months ago. That occurred when several long-grassers came up from The Esplanade drunk, had a fight, and one of them stabbed the other in front of the pub. The media was very focused on Shenannigans because that is where it occurred, but the two people involved, both the perpetrator and the victim, never stepped foot inside Shenannigans Irish Pub; however, Shenannigans copped the flak for that.
More recently, a man was stabbed around Edmunds Street. That is an interesting case as well because again, the licensee – Squires was the venue – was under enormous pressure to respond to claims. My understanding of the event was a man was in the establishment and had one alcoholic drink, some said it was a beer. A fellow came in and stuck a donation into the plastic bucket for the Guide Dogs and the other fellow took offence and they had an argument. They were kicked out of the establishment. One fellow walked down the road, around the corner, and was followed by the victim. A fight ensued; one was stabbed and later died.
Both were dreadful events but, in the latter case, one fellow had not had a drink and the other fellow only one. Neither was intoxicated and the incident happened off the premises. The security at the pub acted entirely appropriately but, unfortunately, the person died. I do not want to take away from the gravity of both those events, but the suggestion that licensees are responsible for those incidents is wrong and they should not be tarred with that brush. With community outrage, people like the member for Nelson are all too ready to use the hysteria generated by those events to prosecute an argument to limit the profitability of establishments along Mitchell Street.
I note the comments of Vince Kelly, the member for Nelson and Matthew Gardiner about putting profits before people and all that nonsense. Profits can only be generated if people turn up, have a good time and the establishment is doing a job.
The fundamental of business is – this is the part lost on many people in Labor and, possibly, the member for Nelson – in owning a business you have to run at a profit. No business can operate at a loss. You have to earn a profit to pay wages and employ people, to buy stock and other things. If you run at a loss you will not be in business long. We want to see businesses being profitable in the Northern Territory. It is not in this government’s or the community’s interest for government to make decisions which make businesses unprofitable.
I am somewhat concerned about the Newcastle restrictions when I see a Crosbie Warren Sinclair report saying nine out of 14 hotels closed, changed hands or went into receivership, with an average reduction in turnover of 27.7% a week, an almost 22% reduction in revenues, a $22.5m decline in asset value, and a reduction in the hotel workforce of almost 22%. Do we really want to see those outcomes along Mitchell Street because of some falsely generated hysteria around alcohol?
I am not so nave to think there are not people who go out at night to cause trouble. I have been out enough times to know it happens. However, I have also been out enough times to realise the majority of people who go out – the tens of thousands of people along Mitchell Street every night – are there for a good time and to enjoy themselves and Territory hospitality.
The member for Nelson took the mickey out of the Chief Minister saying this is a core social value. The core social value in the Territory is freedom. It always has been. We are different here; we have greater freedoms. We are pioneers. We might think of ourselves as a sophisticated modern city, but we are a very young jurisdiction. We have had self-government since 1978. The vast majority of the Northern Territory remains undeveloped. This is somewhat of a frontier, a place where we should have more freedom than anywhere else in the country. Yet every time we come here, it seems we listen to more proposals about restricting people’s freedom, taking away their freedom and how to impose restrictions on them. The member for Nelson might be a nanny statist, but not all of us are.
I advocate for an anti-red tape day in parliament where we can identify areas where there are too many restrictions, where we can relax some laws, where we can give people freedom to act responsibly. I am not supporting this motion and doubt the government will. I am not aware a conscience vote has been called for, apart from the member for Nelson, who wants a conscience vote because he believes we have all been brainwashed by the AHA and are all puppets of the big business mob in the AHA. The man is seriously deluded in that regard. He believes in aliens.
There was a story in the paper recently about being abducted by aliens. He is quite happy to live the dream that we are all a pack of rednecks who do not care about anything, but that is far from the truth.
I urge the House to ignore this motion from the member for Nelson.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. The recent violent crime in Mitchell Street has shocked us all. We know alcohol violence occurs but that does not stop us, as a community, being shocked when a tragedy takes place. The death of any 27-year old is tragic, but the manner of Josh Spicer’s death – stabbed in the CBD – is unbelievably senseless. We need to debate motions and topics like this, and have done that every sitting.
I am not pretending violence in Mitchell Street and the CBD precinct is new, and Mitchell Street is not the only place in the Territory, Australia, or the world prone to alcohol violence. However, this is our town and I believe the sentiment in this town right now is we will not tolerate stabbings. We are not that city. Darwin is not that place, and we will not let it become that place, which is why debating this motion is important. It is not just the specifics of the motion, but the topic as a whole. It is important to point out that we would not be having this debate if the CLP had not broken their election commitment. The CLP promised to cut crime by 10% in their first year, and every year. It was a firm commitment in the television advertisements, policy papers, and in their signed contract with Territorians. The results are in. They have failed; Adam Giles has failed.
In the last year, violent crime has risen by over 10% across the Territory. This is not a problem isolated to Mitchell Street. In the Northern Territory we are experiencing the highest levels of assault in our history. In Darwin the statistics are clear: in the June quarter last year there were 386 assaults; in the June quarter this year there were 445, an increase of over 15%. The CLP promised to bring crime down by 10%. Violent crime is up in Darwin by 15% under the CLP, and it is not just comparing one quarter with another.
The number of assaults in Darwin last year is the highest ever at 1630. That does not include Palmerston, which has also had the highest number of assaults over the last 12 months. In the lead up to the 2008 election, the CLP complained that assaults in Alice Springs were too high. Assaults in Alice Springs were 60% higher in the last year under the failed policies of the current CLP than in 2008. That is their failure. The CLP’s broken commitment – their broken contract is the reason we are having this debate.
If they had succeeded in cutting violent crime by 10% we would not be debating how to reduce the increase in violent crime, and that is the crux of this debate. Violent crime is increasing so what can we do about it? As mentioned, under the CLP violent crime is rising across the Territory. This problem is not isolated to Mitchell Street. The majority of alcohol violence comes from takeaway sales, not on-premise drinking. This has been the case for a long time and the police have made that clear on numerous occasions. Mitchell Street is not the only place to experience violent crime.
The CLP’s failure to cut violent crime is, of course, clearly linked to its failed alcohol policies. The experts told them their policies were wrong and would not work. The experts were right, the CLP was wrong. There is no doubt a violent crime in Mitchell Street attracts more attention than it would elsewhere. With CCTV and the iconic nature of the precinct, a stabbing death in Mitchell Street draws far greater attention in both media and public debate than say in an Alice Springs town camp. I am not blaming anyone for that, but it is a fact.
The previous Martin and Henderson governments had a proud history of tackling alcohol abuse across the Territory, from ID systems in Alice Springs, Groote and Gove, alcohol management plans in communities, alcohol courts and tribunals, mandatory treatment, income management and, of course, the Banned Drinker Register to name a few of our initiatives.
Alcohol policy is a content-rich area. Many things on both the supply and demand side can be implemented. There is much to talk about on all these issues, although I will focus on the ones specific to Mitchell Street.
In relation to Mitchell Street, we implemented many initiatives and laws directly targeting the precinct. These included precinct bans, banning troublemakers from the area, the CitySafe Unit policing agenda, and more police on the streets and in venues. We worked with industry to buy glasses which cannot be used as weapons. We provided safe taxi ranks and included transport options. We installed and monitored CCTV and targeted drugs with tough new laws. We increased sentences for aggravated assault and introduced laws targeting gangs and bikies. We backed the industry liquor accord with reforms such as ID systems and service protocols. We supported and legislated for the responsible service of alcohol laws. Most importantly, we worked with industry. Quite simply, a reform with the backing of industry will work better. After all, we all want the same thing. Industry does not want the violence because, like the rest of us they abhor violence, but also because violence is bad for business. From a purely commercial point of view, increasing violence is a disaster for industry.
Some people may suggest I am overstating it, but some of the alcohol reforms implemented by the previous government were some of the more courageous policy decisions by recent governments in Australia. At the time we brought in the Banned Drinker Register, there were some in the community opposed to handing over their licence to purchase alcohol. They saw it as an invasion of privacy, an inconvenience, a Big Brother initiative – punishing the majority for the sake of a few. The CLP saw that and opposed it from the start. We copped front page of the paper saying, ‘Licence to Drink’. However, we went ahead and people warmed to it. They saw it worked. Handing over your licence was a small price to pay and not much of an inconvenience at all. The community now, broadly, wants it back. It was a policy of leadership and conviction.
This might sound strange, but the success of the previous government was that we were not afraid to change our mind. Over 11 years, of course we changed our minds on issues; we were continually reforming. To implement a reform you had not implemented previously is essentially changing your mind. We were continually working to solve issues as they emerged. For example, at one stage we were opposed to showing your ID to purchase alcohol in Darwin. We had an ID system in place in Alice Springs and, quite reasonably, we were often asked, ‘Why not in Darwin?’ We defended our position on the basis of the different nature of problems in the towns.
There was legitimate reasoning, but as we listened to experts, as technology evolved, and as specific problems, issues and trends emerged, we reacted. We changed our mind in relation to showing ID in Darwin, and we brought in the Banned Drinker Register. That is what good governments do. They react with soundly researched policy, developed in consultation with experts and industry. We listened to police, judges and doctors. We acted, and we worked with industry to ensure the policy worked. Importantly, we also assessed how changes to alcohol policy would affect everyone. The majority of us drink responsibly. We always assessed how we could ensure that the measures targeted problem drinkers and the impacts on responsible drinkers were minimised.
Of course, some of our reforms impacted on everyone, but we made an assessment. Would an inconvenience, such as showing your licence, be a small price to pay for targeting the problems and limiting the violence? That was our approach. Respond and react to issues, and have an open mind. Listen to the experts; listen to those dealing with the problem on a daily basis. Work with industry, target the problem, and minimise the impact on others.
We now have a debacle. We have promises from the Chief Minister of drastic action backed up by nothing. Police are gagged from talking about the Banned Drinker Register. Experts offering their advice are told to piss off. The CLP promises mandatory drug testing for people involved in violence but it is not implemented. The CLP’s approach to alcohol is arrogant, ill-conceived and a failure. Labor’s ongoing reform to alcohol will continue. Our policy agenda as a party did not stop on 25 August last year when we lost government.
Some people may criticise us if we offer a policy idea saying, ‘Why didn’t you do that when you were in government?’ It is a fair point, but the answer is simple: we constantly made reforms in government and will continue to advocate for reforms from opposition. As we listen to experts and as issues emerge, we will develop policy in a collaborative manner directly targeted at solutions.
The CLP cut off many of our reforms; not just the Banned Drinker Register. It was remarkable to hear the Minster for Alcohol Rehabilitation say last week they could now implement income management for problem drinkers. The CLP scrapped that a year ago when they scrapped the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. It was in place; they scrapped it. They have brought it back and put up the ‘please applause now’ sign. It was wrong to scrap it in the first place. Their decision to scrap it is, undoubtedly, partly to blame for the increase in problems we have experienced over the last year.
We now see alcohol protection order plans, banning people but not enforcing them. This policy is implemented when you know the Banned Drinker Register worked but are too arrogant to admit it.
The GPS solution is ill-conceived and will be a costly failure. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, in relation to the Banned Drinker Register, she preferred a fence at the top of the cliff to an ambulance at the bottom. Whatever you thought of Julia Gillard it was a good quote.
This is exactly what the CLP is doing with the alcohol protection orders. Rather than stopping the sale, they want to catch people after the sale. It is setting people up to fail. If they can walk into a bottle shop and buy alcohol and get away with it, it is a failed scheme. There is nothing to stop them. The bottle shop owner cannot know they are banned. Only later will their actions be criminalised if they are caught. I will quote from Russell Goldflam from the Criminal Lawyers Association who, when talking about the impact of the alcohol protection orders, said banned drinkers will be set up like:
to be locked up for breaching their order. The CLP criticised the Criminal Lawyers claiming they profit from crime. It is an offensive suggestion and simply wrong. If that were the case they would be supportive of the move to criminalise alcohol because it would mean more business. They are not because they know these laws will fail.
Madam Speaker, I now go to the content of the motion from the member for Nelson. This motion suggests the government should introduce changes similar to the measures introduced in Newcastle. He does not specifically mention it in the motion, but one of the measures he is referring to, the main one, is a lockout.
The first point to make clear is the Newcastle changes were a suite of measures, not just a lockout. I will talk more about that soon. Some of the other measures, such as secure taxi ranks, have already been implemented in Darwin. I will briefly discuss the pros and cons of a lockout and the different shapes and sizes. The Newcastle model is the one referred to most often, but lockouts have been implemented in a range of forms in a variety of places.
The first part of the lockout is important. If there are fewer people in the pub, if the nightclub closes earlier, then less alcohol is sold and consumed. The counter argument is you may simply be dispersing the problem. Chances are a young person out on the town wants to keep partying after 1 am or 3 am. They may not go home to bed as a result of a lockout. The statistics the member for Nelson quoted are impressive. He says alcohol-related non-domestic assaults went down by 33% over the last five years. That may be the case in the CBD area of Newcastle, and may be the case for non-domestic assaults, but was the problem moved rather than reduced? Pubs and clubs are not always perfect, but are a far more controlled environment for drinking than parks or homes. There are CCTV cameras, crowd controllers, and there are penalties in place for the irresponsible service of alcohol to an intoxicated patron.
In Darwin, if our clubs closed earlier the drinking would become more dispersed and harder to police. I do not know what the dispersion result was in Newcastle, but being in the Hunter Valley it is not too far from other drinking precincts on the central coast of New South Wales. Did this dispersion occur? Was there a greater uptake in uncontrolled events where alcohol was served at house or underground parties? Was there an increase in assaults in other areas?
Another factor is that the lockout is one of a suite of measures. People from Newcastle who do not necessarily oppose the lockout also point to a change in public transport. It was easier for people to get out of the city. That included safe taxi ranks staffed by security guards until late into the night. We have already done that in Darwin, supported by police, the pubs and clubs and taxi drivers. It worked in Newcastle and has worked here. There was also, apparently, a significant change in policing in Newcastle, also in the drug trade. There was a coincidental drop in the use of methamphetamines such as ice, which can often lead to violence.
I accept that the Newcastle reforms, including the lockout, have been successful in Newcastle. I accept they have broad support from the police and the community in Newcastle. I accept it worked for Newcastle. However, there have been lockouts in other cities that have not had the same success or support.
In May 2008, in response to a recent spate of CBD violence, Victorian Premier John Brumby, announced a lockout in the Melbourne CBD precinct. The lockout was dropped after three months with little outcry. While I am not saying there was not opposition to it being dropped, it went away quietly. It certainly did not have the broad support the Newcastle one has.
Other lockouts in various forms have been implemented around the country in places like the Gold Coast, Bendigo, Hobart, and Glenelg to name a few. Each lockout is different, and each one has been developed to accommodate the specifics of the location and community.
As I mentioned, lockouts come in different shapes and sizes. They can be legislated unilaterally. A condition of licence for a particular venue is voluntary – either venue specific or part of the liquor accord we have in Darwin. With the condition of licence model, for example, a lockout could be enforced upon a licence based on a decision of the Liquor Commission if repeated incidents or breaches were occurring. The action is taken as a result of poor management. This can be done on a temporary or permanent basis.
Lockouts can involve staged closures, avoiding a sudden influx of people onto the street. Lockouts can be managed with public transport. Some places provide dedicated buses or extra taxis coordinated to synchronise with staged lockouts. We have lockouts in Darwin.
This motion suggests we do in Darwin what works in Newcastle. On some levels, our towns may be similar: in size, we both have a military presence, and Newcastle has a long-established mining industry while we have an emerging gas industry. However, Darwin and Newcastle are very different places.
I will start with a difference which may offend our Newcastle friends, or Novocastrians, as they are called. Two years ago, Darwin was named by Lonely Planet as one of the top 10 cities in the world to visit. I am sure, but correct me if I am wrong, Newcastle has not made that list. Darwin is a city with a huge focus on tourism. The tourism and hospitality industries are amongst our biggest employers. An aspect of that tourism entertainment product is our vibrant nightlife.
Despite our comparatively low population, Darwin is an international city, more so than Newcastle, and 99% of the people in our Mitchell Street nightclubs early in the morning are having a great time and are not fighting. The word spreads, ‘Make sure you go to Darwin, it’s a great town’. Will a lockout compromise this? It depends on how it is done, but it must be assessed. We have lockouts already in Darwin. It can be easy to be a wowser about this. I do not go to bars and nightclubs until the early hours any longer, but I did when I was younger, not that I like to think I am old.
The average age of this parliament is well beyond the average age of the Territory. It is well above the average adult age of the Northern Territory, for most of us. That is not a bad thing, experience is good. However, we have to be careful about introducing laws preventing young people doing what we once did. Stopping violence is essential; stopping young people having a great time out must be avoided.
For example, the Newcastle model involves no shots after 10 pm. Is 10 pm right for Darwin? Would midnight work better? Maybe industry would embrace that. Under the Newcastle model, there is no entry after 1.30 pm. As part of our current liquor accord, some venues have voluntary lockouts. Perhaps some aspects of this accord could become legislation, and the minister has floated that idea. For example, currently a person evicted from one venue can be barred entry from others as part of the accord. It may be easier for pubs and clubs to enforce this with a legislative backing rather than just an accord. The legislation can work with identification technology to mandate privacy provisions and ensure the system is not misused.
I note there are currently search provisions for police in relation to knives. You could declare Mitchell Street a knife-free precinct at night. There is no reason to be carrying a knife in Mitchell Street at night. Declaring the precinct knife-free and promoting the consequences of carrying a knife would help discourage people from carrying them. We could look at these things.
I support the intent of this motion. I cannot support its explicit statement that the Newcastle model be introduced into Darwin. This does not provide an analysis of what would work in Darwin. It does not provide for experts, police, and lawyers to assess our complementary laws and practices and implement a scheme. It does not accord with the successful approach of the former Martin and Henderson governments to work with experts and industry and get their buy-in. It does not provide for consultation. I fully support looking at what is happening around the country and seeing what works for Darwin, but this motion says pick up what works in Newcastle and do it here. I cannot support that.
I will support an approach which involves looking at options around the country broadly and acting to improve the Territory, because it is not a problem isolated to the Mitchell Street precinct. I support – the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about this in the past – a bipartisan parliamentary committee which looks at broad alcohol issues. It could visit Newcastle and other precincts to see what worked and what did not. We have issues much broader than Mitchell Street. We could involve local members of the AHA, police, Vince Kelly, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, paramedics, even journalists. We should look at it and work on the issue together.
I note the commentary from some that to oppose Newcastle reforms is to be in bed with the AHA. I do not accept this. Working with industry is important. I believe police, industry, council, and government working in sync to prevent violence is the best way forward.
In my dealings with AHA, they are not opposed to reform as long as they get a hearing into the logistics of it and the reality of it on the ground. Some of the ideas implemented in Mitchell Street have come at the suggestion of AHA members.
Drinking glasses that shatter or break in such a way they cannot be used as weapons come to mind. These ideas come forward when you work in cooperation. A reform with the industry on board will always work better than one which does not take into account suggestions and concerns of industry. This is not just specific to the AHA, but any industry body and any reform process.
In relation to increasing violence, we must act. We must make a stand, and I commend this motion for the stand it makes. I support its intent. The motion strongly reflects the views of the people of Darwin; they want us to take a stand. They do not want to talk of drastic action, they want action that works.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward and allowing us to have the debate. His motives to curb the increase of alcohol-related violence are pure and admirable.
As shadow minister for Alcohol Policy, I confirm we endorse the intent of the motion to tackle alcohol abuse but believe this is a problem across the Northern Territory. We will never put politics ahead of taking action to combat alcohol-related violence. We did that in government, and it is what we will do in opposition. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when there is public alarm at incidents which have taken place, for example, earlier this month in Darwin CBD, strong leadership is required to balance the facts and the advice of the authorities. This includes the Northern Territory Police, and licensing, against the media coverage and emotions such incidents engender.
I am deeply saddened by the recent needless loss of life, and I extend my sympathies to the family of Mr Spicer.
The member for Nelson has specifically referred to measures contained within the alcohol management strategy for the city of Newcastle. The background is a Newcastle council resolution of 18 August 2009 requested such a strategy and mandated restrictions were introduced effective from February 2011. The reason for the very grave concern in Newcastle was because between 2003 and 2008 the prevalence of alcohol-related crime increased significantly.
Assaults attended by police increased by 83%, with up to 65% relating to licensed premises, and the number of police callouts to hotels in the Newcastle entertainment precinct increased by more than 70%.
An analysis of crime data relating to Darwin, specifically the number of assaults occurring in the Mitchell Street precinct, has been undertaken by Northern Territory Police. The results show during the period 1 July to 30 September 2012 there were 51 recorded assaults and, during the corresponding period this year there were 52 assaults – almost no difference at all.
One of the components of the Newcastle initiative was the introduction of closed circuit TV cameras, or CCTV. Those visiting Darwin should rest assured CCTVs have been operating here for four years and have been integral to the policing strategies around antisocial behaviour and associated violence. The Territory CCTV system consists of 161 cameras which are monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
From 1 May 2013 to 14 October 2013, the CCTV unit monitored more than 1310 incidents in Darwin, Palmerston, Parap, and Alice Springs, including looking at 114 liquor or drunks, 102 fights, 231 general disturbances and 56 assaults.
Mitchell Street alone has 13 CCTV cameras. I table a copy of the map of those cameras in Mitchell Street.
In addition, all licensed premises, with the exception of restaurants, have the installation and maintenance of security cameras mandated within their licence conditions.
It is important to note the Chairman’s message in the Northern Territory Licensing Commission’s 2012-13 Annual Report. I quote:
Let me repeat that: nil complaints this reporting year.
This is fact. Cast your mind back to my reference to earlier statistics: 51 in that time frame and 52 in the corresponding time frame this year. I thank the Australian Hotels Association NT, the AHA, and their members for demonstrating their commitment to running responsible venues.
Let us look at the current situation regarding trading hours in Darwin CBD. Of the 16 premises, half are licenced to 2 am and half licenced to 4 am. The staggered closing hours have the purpose of ensuring there is no mass exodus onto Mitchell Street. All liquor licences which allow for trading after 3 am enforce the lockout of patrons. This means no new patrons are allowed to enter after 3 am, and those who seek to leave are not allowed to re-enter.
On 11 October 2013, a few days ago, the AHA unanimously reconfirmed its commitment to the Darwin CBD accord. This accord is in place between all Darwin CBD’s licensees, the police and licensing. The purpose is to ensure Darwin has a vibrant, safe entertainment precinct for locals and visitors to enjoy. Regular meetings address initiatives, management and issues that arise. The accord’s objectives include zero tolerance towards antisocial and violent behaviour, the responsible service of alcohol, ensuring safety and security within the licenced premises as well as, as far as reasonably practicable, outside the licenced venue, and improving the general amenity of Darwin.
I commend the AHA for its commitment to this accord. I also encourage continued debate about ways to strengthen it into the future. I had the opportunity yesterday of meeting the head of the AHA and spoke in depth about the accord and how the recent reconfirmation by all premises in Mitchell Street precinct that they sign the accord, and all remain committed to a safe and secure environment is a very positive outcome. It is great to see the private sector working together to ensure the safety of Territorians.
The drinking scene across Australia changes with the years and new trends. There are patrons who view total intoxication as proof of a good night out. The research project undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the Newcastle initiative noted that the increasingly common practice of drinking at home before hitting the nightclubs is the major predictor of people experiencing harm and violence. A further fact is drug use, which can lead to a greater experience of violence and harm.
As an aside, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support this week of our introduction of tougher penalties for methamphetamine offences.
It is important to have the right mix of alcohol management across the Northern Territory which considers sale and availability, outlets and their locations, conditions of operations and track record. The recent incident in Darwin involved three chaps having a beer after work. It had nothing to do with late night trading, but a fight that lead to a fatality on the street.
The member for Nelson has specifically mentioned measures introduced in Newcastle. Let me emphasise that many cities have researched safe city strategies which respond to the requirements of their communities. In Western Australia, the city of Gosnell has adopted a new alcohol policy. In the city of Wellington, New Zealand, their alcohol management strategy followed on from a community engagement program which considered issues including how alcohol can positively contribute to our aspiration for a dynamic central city, and how we can all play a part in reducing alcohol-related harm. Other major urban centres seek to put in place initiatives similar to those we see in Darwin, including establishing an entertainment precinct for late night activity in the central area, and creating a two-tiered maximum trading hour system with staggered closure times.
We are well aware of the strategies in place and proposed in other locations. Their results, and subsequent effects, are monitored. Questions are asked about the anomalies, such as why no other city in New South Wales has rolled out a Newcastle copycat strategy. Questions about the displacement effects, that is, where have the problems moved to? We acknowledge there are serious issues nationwide around heavy drinking, especially in the younger demographic. The destructive cycle of drinking affects our urban areas as well as our remote communities.
Member for Nelson, within your electorate the rural area has seen incidents over recent years where teenagers at alcohol-fuelled gatherings has led to uncontrolled misbehaviour in completely unregulated environments. That is why the Country Liberals government has a suite of measures to combat the problem, tools such as the new system of alcohol protection orders which were launched today. They are designed to help police in their fight against alcohol-related crime.
Under this legislation, an adult who is charged with committing a serious offence under the influence of alcohol can be issued with an order banning them from consuming or possessing alcohol or going to any licensed premises. Once again, I stress that individuals must take responsibility for their behaviour.
Madam Speaker, we have to keep the issue clear of emotion and headline grabs. There has to be a balance between a dynamic city centre and public expectation of safety. We want to see the promotion of Darwin as a destination for the celebration of lifestyle, tourism, business and sporting events rather than excess alcohol consumption. That is why the current Darwin CBD Master Plan Project is a timely undertaking. The project has been funded in cooperation with the City of Darwin and the Territory and Australian governments, and will produce a blueprint for Darwin’s growth over the next 20 years.
In order for the strategies to be comprehensive and integrated there has been a heavy engagement with the community. A total of 106 workshops have been held with discussions on many facets of how the city functions, including public safety, licensed premises and the entertainment precinct.
I have a briefing on Friday at the City of Darwin before the public draft document is released on Tuesday 22 October. The vision is for a sustainable, productive and liveable capital city. The entertainment precinct in Darwin CBD provides widespread employment. It provides venues of choice for patrons of all ages, from those who have enjoyed an evening at the Entertainment Centre and want to party on, business people here for meetings and major conferences, tourists visiting the Territory, to the younger demographic wanting to spend their pay as swiftly as they have received it.
This government is responsible and has a vision of framing the future for a strong society which wants an individual’s right to freedom and is safe for all.
Once again I emphasise, with no apology, that all members of the community must show a level of responsibility for themselves. Member for Nelson, be assured this is an issue we take very seriously. The government is sending a clear message that we expect appropriate behaviour, but if antisocial behaviour continues we may have to consider other measures.
I reflect on some of the statistical dot points I referred to earlier, that being there has not been a substantial change – one assault in the time frame I referred to earlier – between the former Labor government and our government. However, we are prepared to talk tough and send a clear message to the community that we believe there should be stronger expectations by elements of our community – a very small minority that likes to cause trouble.
Last week during Question Time I spoke about drugs on our street and the importance of police and drug dogs undertaking a greater role, particularly around the CBD, to ensure drugs are not in licensed premises. It is not only alcohol that is a problem; my information is drugs are a significant problem.
Last week Operation Omaha had 50 officers on the beat providing a safe environment with a very positive outcome. The numbers were much smaller than I expected for arrests and people going into protective custody, and some of those were around drink-driving. That level of activity shows a positive outcome and sends a message for the next time police are out there. We have asked police for a more intensive effort over a longer period of time to ensure that clear message is sent.
I have also asked if the Police Commissioner can see if dogs can be used more frequently, albeit as per police operational requirements, with a specific focus on targeting drugs in nightclubs. I hear from police, ambulance officers, fire officers, licensees and people on the accord that drugs and the effect they have on people are a serious concern late at night.
I do not want to categorise or generalise too much, but you hear stories about five foot tall slender young women with the strength of 10 men at the end of the night because of the drugs they have allegedly taken. They create a serious concern for not only law enforcement officers or ambulance officers, but licensees, patrons in clubs, and people on the street. That is a specific area we need to focus on, and I have asked the Police Commissioner to have a serious look at it.
Operation Omaha will continue this weekend. We would like to think the minority which causes trouble is off the street. We will continue to send a clear message. I do fear putting in tougher measures but only if we need them. If police, people like me, and community leaders in this Chamber and outside send that message and ensure there is a safe environment, it creates satisfaction for people who want to frequent these premises, and parents can feel a greater sense of security when their 20-year old child has a good night out in what they believe is a safe environment.
I understand the challenges. I understand it is popular to talk about the situation in the CBD and Mitchell Street. However, the numbers, statistically, have not changed over the reference point I provided. We can continue to beat the drum and send a clear message it will not be tolerated, ensure there are adequate police operations, ensure we have a strong regulatory environment and work positively with licensed venues and the alcohol accord. It was great this week to see all licensed premises have signed up to the accord and are taking a zero tolerance approach.
I congratulate the AHA on getting everybody together. I look forward to working with the AHA and the accord. Both the minister and the government look forward to that. It is not just about Mitchell Street, the CBD, or Darwin; it is across the Territory. It is difficult to provide a regulatory environment for different, vast landscapes and circumstances across the Northern Territory, but I believe we are doing quite well.
We need improvements in certain areas. I am sure the Minister for Alcohol Policy is looking at the Licensing Act to see what improvements can be made to ensure greater levels of regulatory support. This issue will remain on our minds.
Madam Speaker, we accept the intent of the motion but will not be supporting it. However, we will continue to work with the community and the all-important stakeholders to ensure a safe environment is provided. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, although I do not agree, I thank the Chief Minister for his point of view and for giving me the courtesy of listening to my arguments. I also thank the leader of opposition business. I cannot quite say the same for the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s speech, which I considered a rant, unfortunately.
I will take up some of the issues raised but they may not be in any order. Both the Chief Minister and the member for Fannie Bay were concerned that in the Newcastle experiment they did not know what effect it had on neighbouring suburbs. The neighbouring suburb is Hamilton, and I can give him some statistics from the New South Wales Bureau of Crimes Statistics which said:
I highlight that because the member for Fannie Bay said there would be a drift elsewhere. I also presumed, except perhaps for the casino, our more local alcohol establishments would not have the same hours of operation as those in the CBD.
At the start of my speech I said this was bigger than just Mitchell Street; this is an issue for the entire Territory. There was not enough time in this debate to deal with the broader issues. However, we know the effects alcohol has on domestic violence, deaths on our roads, violence in general, sickness in our community and premature death from excessive use of alcohol. It is not about what the member for Fong Lim tried to do, as he always does – me being a wowser or wanting to spoil everyone’s good fun.
This issue is not about closing down Mitchell Street or telling hoteliers and licensees they cannot run their businesses. This is saying we need controls because we have evidence that if there are changes you will get a 33% reduction in alcohol-fuelled assaults and a 26% reduction in emergency department admissions. Of course, those percentages may not be the same, but that is the benefit of these changes.
The member for Fong Lim quoted from a report by Crosbie Warren Sinclair. Tonight I produced statistics which were independently assessed and freely available to anyone from Professor Peter Miller of Deakin University and Professor John Wiggers, University of Newcastle. They scrutinised and independently assessed the results of this change in the CBD of Newcastle. The member for Fong Lim quoted from a report which has never been released to the public. There were two reports, neither of which had been given to anyone for independent scrutiny. As far as I know, they were paid for by the AHA. They should be checked by an independent body, like a university, but that was not allowed. The documents he quoted from cannot be used to validate what he is talking about.
In fact, as I said in my opening speech, it has been shown – these figures have come through the research – increase in the total number of licensed premises is 20, including restaurants and small bars in Newcastle CBD, and an increase in sustainable business diversity away from the late trade binge bars. There was an improvement in the night economy. In Newcastle the economy has not gone backwards; people have returned to the CBD because it is a safer place.
What family would want to go Mitchell Street these days? It used to be popular, with Hog’s Breath Cafe, the cinema, pizza parlours, but now it tends to be drowned by licensed premises and more money is being invested. All the pubs are still open. One burnt down and one closed down then started up again.
The information the member for Fong Lim provided cannot stand up to scrutiny. Tonight I have tried to provide backing to the issues. The member for Fannie Bay said, ‘Newcastle will not apply anywhere else’. The Queensland Attorney-General said he is considering a 1 am lockdown and 3 am close. Christchurch, a long way from Newcastle, is talking about a 1 am lockdown and 3 am close.
We are not talking about lockdowns alone, and the member for Fannie Bay quoted places where it had failed. However, Professor Miller from Deakin University found in some cities reliance on a lockout curfew alone without a reduction in late closing times increased the level of alcohol-fuelled assaults. The Newcastle direction ensured the two worked together. I find it hard to answer some of the member for Fong Lim’s comments, especially when he started by saying this is harebrained. I do not care if people think I am a wowser or do not know what I am talking about.
About a year-and-a-half ago I toured every bar in Mitchell Street with the AHA, so I know what they look like; I know the places. I might be old, but I visited them. I finished at midnight. I would love to know what time the Chief Minister finished the other night, because he had his picture in the paper. Obviously, he was not there at 4 am.
I spoke to two mounted police the night I was there and they said, ‘If you want to see action, come back after 3 am or 4 am when they shut down’. We cover it over with smooth talk, but it is not so. It is sad you throw that stuff at me. All I wanted to say is, ‘Yes, young people can have a good time in Mitchell Street but start a little earlier’. How many of us complain about kids drinking before they head off to the Mitchell Street precinct? That issue has been dropped, binge drinking has been dropped. One of the surveyors from the university said he could find people in Newcastle at 9 pm, but could not find them in Wollongong at 11.30 pm. People came out a little earlier and still had plenty of time to drink, you just brought the closing time back.
Professor Miller was not only looking at Newcastle. He looked at Wollongong and Geelong, a fair distance apart. He said for every hour you reduce closing time you get a 20% reduction in assaults. I provided evidence that bringing back lockdown times and bringing back closing times makes a difference. I say to the people in the alcohol industry it is not about shutting them down. It is about using the evidence analysed from the Newcastle direction: if you make these changes you will reduce alcohol-fuelled assaults and the pressure at our hospitals, and on our nurses, doctors, surgeons and paramedics. That does not make me a wowser. I hope that shows I care about people on the front line and about young people, especially if we can reduce their binge drinking. They can still have a good time; we have not said they should not go to Mitchell Street.
To be told I am talking rubbish, to accuse Vince Kelly of making statements on behalf of the Police Association because he was a failed Labor candidate – give me a break. There would be several hundred failed Labor candidates around the country. Is that a scourge that from now on one should never speak independently? He represents the Northern Territory Police Association. If they consider him not worthy of speaking on behalf of them because he is a failed Labor candidate they would have got rid of him years ago. He told the truth, and I support what he says.
What we have today is wrong. The member for Fannie Bay said we are a different city, a tourist city. I spent time in Newcastle and it is a surfing town. Some of the old rock and roll songs come out of Newcastle …
A member: Chisel.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Many young people visit Newcastle. It might be a coal city, but it is a young person’s town as well. It has some nice hotels. It is not the Newcastle of 30 years ago; it is a vibrant city. They introduced changes which have not been to the detriment of Newcastle. I recommend that people look at the figures. If you want, ring Professor John Wiggers at the University of Newcastle, who spoke to me recently about work he has done. You could talk to Professor Miller at Deakin University. Do not rely on me because I am not the expert, even though the member for Fong Lim says – I do not worry too much, but I become his object of fun when trying to relay the position of learned people on this matter.
The member for Fong Lim throws red herrings in everywhere. I did not mention the two murders in Mitchell Street. The Chief Minister in his answer to a question last week from the member for Drysdale mentioned them. I did not mention it so I wonder why people say these things. The member for Fong Lim says all the people I quoted want prohibition. Where does that evidence come from? If we are working on evidence, can he get a statutory declaration from Vince Kelly, Matthew Gardiner, Yvonne Falckh, Bill Carlson and Peter Beaumont saying they want prohibition? I will be blowed if they do!
Does this add to an argument about a serious issue? The Minister for Alcohol Policy should resign that portfolio and give it to the Chief Minister. Even if I did not agree with the Chief Minister, at least he had a reasoned argument; I was not called a wowser and people were not called prohibitionists. People cannot respect what is coming from the Minister for Alcohol Policy because as you said, it is not just about Mitchell Street, there are other issues. If he worries about me being passionate – I do not drink because I have seen the tragedy of alcohol in Aboriginal communities, especially Daly River, where there were 30 kids in the dormitory and half were dead before 21, all from the effects of alcohol. They were murdered, run over, bashed, stabbed, you name it.
I have concerns about where society is going for all people, black or white, but that does not mean I am a wowser. My kids all drink; they love a wine. They get the giggles and you cannot shut them up, but there is drinking and there is drinking.
We should be concerned when we see pictures from down south. I reckon we will see similar pictures here of paramedics trying to pick up people who have been affected by alcohol and drugs.
The AHA told me drugs are a problem. Imagine if you were on ice. We spoke about ice and its effects. People become excessively aggressive. I have seen some of the 24-hour emergency shows from England, also from New South Wales, where people have to be strapped down and held because they are violent. We should be concerned about these people and how we can change that so nurses and doctors help sick people, not those who need help because they were belted by their mate who was over the moon.
They are the issues we should be concentrating on. How many important facilities are being wasted because we have people who cannot take responsibility and because we have problems with alcohol in our society?
In summing up, when I know the Queensland Attorney-General is considering changing closing times in Queensland to 1 am and 3 am, I say to the CLP, ‘You have a how’s your aunty Liberal National Party in good old Queensland’. It is a free-for-all in some places. They are looking at seven casinos. For the Attorney-General of Queensland to say, ‘We have some issues and we ought to look at changing lockouts and closing times’, does that make him a wowser? I do not think so. It makes him a politician willing to look at change he has seen in Newcastle.
I did not want to browbeat the member for Fong Lim to force my code of conduct on the rest of the world. I want to reflect on what other people are saying, such as the Last Drinks Campaign. By the way, other towns in New South Wales are looking at similar things and are having trouble because of the AHA. It is a very powerful lobby group in New South Wales. From the figures I saw, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to political parties.
Byron Bay is looking at last drinks at midnight because of the problems they have. They have adjusted them, but they will be using similar ideas to the Newcastle direction. You say you cannot apply the Newcastle conditions to Darwin. However, you could have a trial. You are not asking people to close down. You could have a two-year trial and get an independent body to come in, like Deakin University or the University of Newcastle. Get someone else to see what effect it has over that period. You would need some advice on the length of the trial to see how effective it would be.
We cannot say, as the Chief Minister said in answer to questions recently, ‘Things are not worse, but they are not better’ after saying we had 50 police last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in the CBD and another 50 this weekend. If Mitchell Street is fine, why do you have Operation Omaha invading the beaches of the CBD? That shows there is something wrong.
Madam Speaker, I thank everybody for their contributions tonight. I put this forward as a serious debate because we need to tackle the problem, not because of media hype, but because of what is happening all over the Territory.
Once again, I thank members for their contribution. I thank all those people in Newcastle and Darwin who gave me the information I put forward tonight. I did my best but, as many people say, the battle might not be won, but there is time to look at this issue in the future. We will not leave it alone. It is an important issue we will continue to focus on.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 1 Noes 23
Mr Wood Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler
Mr Conlan
Mr Elferink
Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Fyles
Mr Giles
Mr Gunner
Mr Higgins
Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lawrie
Ms Lee
Mr McCarthy
Ms Manison
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Vowles
Ms Walker
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the NT government consider changes to the NT Planning Act or NT Planning Scheme to require that, where residential land, including rural residential land affected by seepage, flooding or tidal surge, a line – even if approximate – should be shown on the registered title map for that land.
This is a fairly simple motion, and I hope it gets support because I have asked the government to consider this change. It is, I believe, a sensible change.
I brought it forward because people will remember that over the last few years I have had concerns about some blocks of land in the Herbert area that were flooded. They are not the only blocks, by the way. They were flooded because information about the blocks was incorrect.
There are also blocks in Howard Springs which are flooded, some historical, some recent. The problem is it is very difficult to get information about a block of land and find out if there are wet areas on it. Presently, you can go to the Planning department and they will tell you to look at water logging maps. Those maps are on such a large scale that any chance of saying they are accurate to 50 m would be impossible. In fact, a lady came to see me some time ago from, perhaps Humpty Doo. She bought a block that I knew went underwater, but she was new to the area and did not speak to me. She went to the department and was told ‘Here is the map. No, it is all right.’ I know that block goes completely underwater because the block next door goes three quarters underwater. The bloke paid $200 000 and that Wet Season found he had thrown his money away. That block is then sold off to another person, and they have the same problem.
Under the existing planning laws if you are subdividing land – the minister might check this because it could apply in urban areas, especially Rapid Creek or in a tidal surge zone, but it would probably apply to new subdivisions in the rural area – there is nothing to say you cannot subdivide land with some wet areas on it. Generally, if the areas are of significance they are taken out of the subdivision. However, people can buy land and, according to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, you are not permitted to subdivide a 2 ha block unless there is a minimum of 1 ha unconstrained land on it.
Unconstrained land can mean two things. Generally it is a seepage area, or it can mean a flood line. We used to call it the one-in-100-year flood line. I believe it is called the 1% AEP. When a developer goes to the Development Consent Authority for approval, they have to show there is 1 ha of dry land on each parcel of land. Unfortunately, in the case of our favourite blocks of land in Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court, the developer did the wrong thing. If you believe what the Ombudsman said, the department did not check properly either, but that is another issue.
This is not the greatest example, but is an example of a block which was flooded. This map is what goes to a Development Consent Authority meeting. That map shows roads, the layout of the blocks, and should also show any land which is inundated or subject to seepage. That way the department and the Development Consent Authority can ask, ‘Is there 1 ha of land above that flood line?’ If there is, then the subdivision will be approved, subject to other things, but that is the last you will see of it.
You have a subdivision like this one, probably 30 or 40 blocks, which will get a stamp, the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority will give it a tick of approval, and it will disappear into the archives of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Unless you understand the system you will look at the block and, if you do not have enough knowledge of the vegetation or soil types, or unless there is water lying on the block – checking in March is a good time – you will not know it floods. There might be no neighbours because these are all new blocks, and you will have no one to talk to about it. You might ask the council but they would probably say, ‘Look up the water logging map’. You could go to Building Advisory Services in Parap, but if you do not know anyone with local knowledge, you will get a broad answer from the department.
A possible way around it is that if the Development Consent Authority accepts a parcel of land has 1 ha of unconstrained land it should be willing to say to the government, ‘Let us mark the title with that same line’. People might think that is fine, but there are some issues. Naturally, some years are wetter than others. Climate change might cause increased flooding on these blocks. Although the vegetation might indicate it will be dry, with time some of these lines may not be accurate. The way around that is to have an approximate boundary of unconstrained line and the year the subdivision was approved. If someone purchases a block, the title will show the date of the boundary of unconstrained and constrained land.
I am not asking the minister to agree to it tonight as there may be other technical matters, because we are dealing with subdivision and titles. There may be reasons for complications. However, the basis behind it is to reduce the chance of people purchasing land for a house, which is the most important purchase they make in their life, and being caught out as the people in Herbert, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo have been. It is so difficult to stand in someone’s house, as I did on several occasions when I worked for the council – once on Christmas evening and I was standing in the kitchen with water half way up my legs and the people were complaining that the council had not put a drain in. I said to them, ‘Those white ghost gums out the front’ – this was wet country.
People cannot always get the advice they want. This is a way because everyone would see the title when they bought the land. I presume you still get a folio; a map of the title, the name of the previous owners, and if it has a big line across it saying the area is unsuitable or is subject to flooding, you have a chance to protect those people from buying unsuitable land.
Members will know I tried to bring in legislation about how we sell land. The owner of the land should have to provide details about it. One compulsory detail I wanted was whether the land floods. The problem with what I am putting forward is this does not cover historical blocks of land and I do not know if that could be looked at. Older subdivisions did not go through the same processes we have today.
Subdivisions in my area go back to 1964 when there was no Northern Territory government. I suggest planning regulations were probably nil. People cut up land that was quite unsuitable for subdivision, and today people see it in the Dry Season, buy it, then find, to their disgust, they have wasted their money.
It is a simple motion before us, minister. I hope the government will tell us if it is possible and, if so, do we need legislation. Tidal surge could affect urban blocks. There are some rural blocks in Palmerston, even though I call them large suburban. I would not want 4000 m2 blocks being rural. There are blocks in Rapid Creek, also Leanyer. I put that forward as a variation on the theme of the motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, this is, of course, something the member for Nelson is very close to. From the outset, I agree with the sentiment of the motion. I will have to seek more advice on the practical implementation of something like this.
We have moved forward, particularly in the last 12 months, in that area and some of the changes we are making. I also shared some of the frustrations of a particular developer in the rural area, who we are still working with today to resolve issues. The Litchfield Council is also included in discussion of those issues. It has not been an easy road to cross.
I will repeat things I said in opposition. It is easy to speak in hindsight, but perhaps that land should never have been approved for development. I recently discussed wet blocks with other developers and the same issues have been raised. We have to work with developers because we need to turn off additional land in the Northern Territory to help with the housing crisis we have. However, we have to be careful with the line we draw in the sand. Yes, we are dealing with climate change today and whether it is a 100-year flood.
The regulation is 1 ha of dry land on any block. However, you might have a situation where, in a one-in-100-year flood event, the water might impinge by 30 cm for 20 minutes then start to recede. Where do you draw the line in the sand? With the changes in storms and storm surge, if it is closer to the coast where do you draw the line? We have hydrologists who can give you more accurate information, but how often does it change? You mentioned providing a map with a date saying, ‘As of today this is what we believe based on the best science’. However, in two or three years’ time, if a one-in-110-year flood – I do not know how they are recorded – or a one-in-200-year flood occurs, does that put anyone, including government, in breach of an agreement?
We recently introduced a land capability study where the developer of the land has to genuinely get professional advice on land capability. That will include coming up with flood lines if it is close to a storm surge zone. Therefore, prior to a development being approved, the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment will be certain the professional advice stacks up and any potential owners are fully aware of the situation on that block of land.
I was able to get information from the department, and some of this happened under the previous minster because he had to deal with the same issue. My information is that in 2011 new storm surge – we will talk storm surge as well as the rural area – mapping was released by the Department of Land Resource Management – you were obviously involved with that, former Minister for Lands and Planning – for coastal areas including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Weddell, Cox Peninsula and Dundee. This mapping provides detailed information on all land subject to the risk of primary – 100-year average reoccurrence interval – and secondary – 1000-year average reoccurrence interval – storm surge inundation.
The storm surge mapping was based on a sea level rise of 0.05 m to 2050, and a sea level rise of 0.08 m to 2100. The storm surge maps are publicly available from the Department of Land Resource Management website, and are also incorporated in the NT Integrated Land Information System, the ILIS system. On release of the new storm surge maps in 2011, all affected landowners were advised in writing, and the primary or secondary storm surge lines are provided on the record of the administrative interests.
Under the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, the NT government, along with other state and territory jurisdictions, is developing capability investment plans, CIPs, for enhancing disaster resilience in the built environment to be completed by the end of 2013. The CIP for the NT will include a review of options to improve the availability of natural hazard information in land use planning frameworks, including under the Planning Act and the NT Planning Scheme.
On 2 July 2013, I agreed to exhibit a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme to introduce guidelines and development controls for the subdivision of constrained land within the rural zones and unzoned land of the Northern Territory. The proposed amendment was exhibited from 12 July 2013 to 16 August 2013. A number of late submissions are being accepted to ensure all major stakeholders have the opportunity to respond.
Reporting body hearings were established in Alice Springs on 11 September and in Litchfield on 13 September 2013. As part of the amendment, developers are required to seek professional advice on land suitability in relation to a specific site as part of a formal subdivision application in consultation with the Department of Land Resource Management and the relevant local government. The proposed amendment was developed in response to recommendations made by the Ombudsman’s report following the Lorikeet Court, Herbert report.
Essentially, government is not in a position to complete all studies. It would be a very expensive option and developers, in this case, need to seek professional advice.
Member for Nelson, I sincerely agree with the sentiment of the motion and will seek further advice regarding the practical implementation of what you are requesting. However, we are heading in the right direction by putting the onus back on developers to categorically provide information which demonstrates the capability of the land they want to develop prior to any development application being approved by either me as the minister, or through the DCA process.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate and an area I was working with as previous Minister for Lands and Planning. I was working with the member for Nelson because that case was new to me; however, it was another step in my learning. I will always remember the comment from the member for Blain, who went on to be the first Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment in the new CLP government. It was one of those anecdotal attacks on the previous government about releasing land and the same old diatribe that was trotted out regularly. He said ‘I flew over Darwin. I looked down and saw all that land and the Labor government is doing nothing about it.’
I will never forget that comment because the privilege and honour of being the minister commenced the more intensive learning from my humble beginnings. I bought a rural block of land and I walked it. I looked at the trees types, I followed the creek, and I looked at the soil structure. I talked to the neighbours, and I will not select a site for a house until I look at the area in flood. They were my humble beginnings. That was the pragmatic approach I took to this block of land. Then I became the minister so the science definitely came into the debate. I was also privileged to work with the experts who were interested in my learning, and along came the issue of Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court.
I remember when I first looked at that issue and the challenges we were experiencing – what the minister called a one-in-1000-year event. We were measuring rainfall in the Top End in metres, not millimetres. There were two years of incredible Wet Seasons which crept right down into Central Australia and the Territory got a thorough drenching. Those events were quite remarkable, and I will give the Minister for Infrastructure a tip: you have been let off in your first year because you ain’t seen nothing yet. When you see some serious rain in this country you will be challenged around infrastructure. This event highlighted the need for new systems. We did not abandon the affected residents, and we worked with the member for Nelson, which I enjoyed.
We looked at solutions. There were engineering solutions, possible relocation, possible purchase back of blocks, and there was a lot of work going on between the department and the residents. A drainage solution was planned for that area, but it was very difficult to get a consensus and a resolution among affected residents. We were working on that, and the member for Nelson started looking at this possible solution.
It is now with the minister. It was good to hear the minister tonight state, ‘I will take it on board. I will work with the experts.’ That is me paraphrasing what the minister said. I support that because the minister will need to talk to hydrologists and look at the systems around mapping of land in the Territory so there can be an additional layer of evaluation and assessment put to the developer.
The minister will discover some interesting facts on this journey in the area of lands and planning. It will be really exciting and very interesting. There is the science to do this, but there are other costs associated with it. That is what governments are continually challenged with. That is the balance of delivering and the balance of appropriating taxpayers’ dollars.
I look forward to the minister’s exploration in this area. It is possibly an advantage for the minister to have his new Planning Commission because I am sure the Planning Commission could give some real guidance on this. Some research will be done and investigation carried out, and the minister will get the information to assess. The minister can present the case for a Cabinet submission and approval, and we can move on.
The member for Nelson has laid out the foundation for this. It is now in the minister’s court and he has agreed to take this to government and have it assessed. It will be interesting to see what can be done and how, in a simple and pragmatic way, using the modern systems of science and hydrologists, and being able to overlay that in a system which can be presented to, eventually, the buyer of that land.
In the meantime, there is the issue of constraints. It does not stop with a one-in-100-year flood event or one-in-1000-year flood event or, as the minister mentioned, with storm surge mapping and cyclonic events. These constraints are very real and the Territory, as the last frontier, is involved. There are all types of constraints around biting insects and land use that will preserve vast tracks of the Territory in its natural form. There are no two ways about that, and that is the balance.
The rhetoric coming out of the CLP government about cutting red tape and green tape really rings alarm bells. The member for Nelson should be concerned about that because shortcuts can create real issues downstream – pardon the pun – or down the track.
The previous government learnt from that one-in-1000-year event, and we were about finding a resolution for those affected residents. The member for Nelson has proposed a more generic system to resolve the issue of flooding on low lying blocks, wet blocks, and the minister has given his commitment to explore that with the experts to see what can be developed.
It is a good motion. We have had a very positive response from the minister, and it will move forward. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this debate to the parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): In summing up, thank you to both speakers for their thoughts on this motion.
I have heard the minister and the ex-minister talking about the science. I sometimes think we add cost to land development which might be a little excessive. The government has said we will have to get professional advice about the block of land. I worked on the council for 13 years, I was Chairman of the Planning Committee, and I was president of the council and probably looked at every subdivision in the rural area. I was also on and off the Development Consent Authority, depending on how many times I upset the government.
There are several basic concepts when you subdivide. Water will flow downhill, so if you have decent contour maps of an area to be subdivided you will see by the contours where water will run or lay. In the case of this subdivision, that was not done and the minister will know the department had a surveyor draw a half metre contour map which showed everything. It showed where the water would rise until it drained. That one thing, if it had been done, would have immediately given accurate information as to the height of the water, even in a one-in-1000-year flood because once it reached a certain height it would overflow to a block of land I believe the government has now purchased.
The other thing that is a key to understanding whether your block is waterlogged or flooded is vegetation. The government also drew a vegetation map, the one I have here and, believe it or not, this map was nearly identical to the contour map.
They are two basic things which need to be done, especially on rural land. One is proper contouring so you know where water will go. If contours are fairly close together, you know there is a slope. If the contours are far apart, you know you have ground that could be sloppy. It does not require Einstein; it probably does not require a company from Melbourne to create a 20-page document on how 10 blocks of land can be subdivided. It needs basic common sense and scientific ideas that have been around for donkey’s ages.
I walk the blocks. It was called ‘ground truthing’ in the department. The other thing is you wait until it rains and say, ‘Fellows, we will check this block out in March’. You get your gum boots – we used to call it the slosh method. I walked around with a developer and, if you look at a map of Litchfield you will see boundaries that go zig zag, zig zag because he would not make straight lines. We walked some two or three times and put pink tapes on trees. We walked and walked. Are those blocks flooded today? No, because we did the ground truthing.
There are three things. You can use science, use the ground truthing method, and, if they are done properly and the Development Consent Authority is pleased that the information given to them has been checked by the department and signed off by the developer as accurate – if he says they are not accurate he is in trouble – then you will get a mark on the subdivision map saying, ‘This is the line of seepage or flood’.
If the department says that is the line, they should be able to put their hands on their hearts and say that line can go on the title with the proviso it was approved in 2000-whatever. You might even put a plus or minus 10% variation. At least it will give any purchaser an indication. That is what you should put on the plan, minister. I know you are surrounded by two beautiful women; I am not sure if you can get a word in. However, it could have ‘indicative of’ because it sends out a clue. There are a few wet blocks in Drysdale, and this is important. It could send information to the prospective purchaser, ‘Beware, this is indicative of where the flooded area on the block is’.
I understand, minister, you have some changes. Good, we need those changes. You do not want to be increasing the price of land too much by getting a 20-, 30-, or 40-page report on how suitable these blocks are; you can use plain common sense. Talk to Gary Nairn, a man who deals with spatial science. He has been in the surveying game for a long time.
Some pretty fundamental things tell you where land is wet. Add it to the vegetation and ground truthing and you should not make too many mistakes. I throw that in as someone who has, in the past, and still do if I can, walked blocks of land to ensure they are okay.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for agreeing to consider it. No guarantees come with that, but I will twist your arm outside parliament to ensure you do something positive.
Motion negatived.
Division called; not supported.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 157, I request you record my dissent.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the CLP for the deepening and ongoing chaos in the Territory government, hurting families and businesses and our lifestyle, and
1. inflicting power and water price hikes spiking the cost of living
2. ongoing turmoil in the NT Public Service with five ministerial reshuffles and two chiefs in 12 months
In the October sittings of the Assembly last year, the first sittings of the new parliament, we heard speaker after speaker from the new government proclaiming better days for the Territory, in particular, a promise for a responsible, transparent and accountable government. Twelve months later the reality is there for all to see: chaos, dysfunction and uncertainty about our future. To rub salt into the wound of Territorians, the government has bragged about its achievements in capital works which were things put in place by the former Labor government. It has bragged about construction activity happening off the back of the hard work of the former Labor government which had been stable, responsible and capable. Decisions to secure the INPEX gas project, develop the Marine Supply Base and build the new Darwin correctional facility have proven to be right, with strong growth in the construction sector thanks to those projects.
We were a responsible can-do government; a government Territory families and businesses could have confidence in. Let us look at the CLP record in government under two failed Chief Ministers and a revolving door Cabinet.
There has been so much chaos and dysfunction it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps the greatest failure of this CLP government has been to understand the pain Territory families feel daily as a consequence of their conduct and decisions: cost of living increases, largely driven by power and water price hikes hitting the family budget at every turn; and the cost of doing business in the Territory pushed down to families at the same time as they struggle with power bills.
Recently, an independent NTCOSS report showed our power prices are rising at double the rate of the rest of the nation, bar Adelaide, and highlighted the financial stress being applied to Territory families by this CLP government.
Earlier this year we saw figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing the Territory inflation rate is the highest in the country and forecast to grow at the fastest rate for the next five years. Instead of understanding the impact of the cost of living increases, the CLP, driven by their bungling Treasurer, Tollner, is preparing to inflict more pain on Territorians by splitting up Power and Water and preparing this critical essential public asset for sale. The government says it is putting in place a commercial framework to drive efficiency, but we know this code has been used elsewhere as a precursor for privatisation of assets without any expert evidence to show it is necessary. We know, and see elsewhere in Australia, this leads to privatisation, price increases and reduced reliability.
The difference between us and the CLP is Labor would not impose a commercial framework on the organisation, rather a financial sustainability framework. We would not have sacked the independent board of experts and expert local business people. We would not be splitting Power and Water into three, driving up costs. We have seen these structural changes fail elsewhere in Australia, yet the CLP is still hell-bent on introducing them. They are preparing Power and Water for asset sale, which will ultimately cause more price hikes for Territory families and businesses. We know, shamefully, there is a target to reduce the workforce of Power and Water by 40% - 400 workers slashed by Christmas this year. They will not go on the record to tell us if they are slashing apprentices. However, we know they are not taking on apprentices at the rate they used to, eternally to their shame.
The cost of living is also hurting Territorians in that other big component of family budgets, housing. The CLP promised they would reduce the cost of housing yet, under Adam Giles and the CLP, this has risen by 7.7% in Darwin. Despite a promise to make housing more affordable, all we have seen under this government is their scrambling to develop coherent housing policies whilst scrapping ones which were working.
The CLP led Territorians to believe they would provide a stable government under the leadership of the member for Blain, Terry Mills. Instead, we have seen, as we saw when they were a rabble and fighting within, they have become worse. Five ministerial reshuffles in 12 months – unheard of – two Chief Ministers, departmental reshuffles, renaming, rebadging, reshaping, a revolving door of CEOs, chaos and confusion across the public service. Hard-working public servants want to get on with their work providing services to Territorians and helping our Territory grow, instead they go to work in fear of their job disappearing and with uncertainty of the direction, because it is directionless, of government policy.
In the first months of the CLP government hundreds of public servants lost their jobs. Perhaps the most shocking example was the chaos and job losses in Child Protection, with whistle-blowers warning that the merger of the Child Protection and Education departments was not working and was putting children at risk, warning that department arrangements were dysfunctional and child abuse reports were slipping through the cracks.
We developed serious and responsible child protection for this Territory. The CLP has systematically dismantled it. The CLP, on coming to government, has turned its back on expert evidence for an expert framework of child protection in the Northern Territory. They dismantled the stability that agency had fought so hard to achieve. They created uncertainty and confusion, leaving the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner to say:
They transferred public service department headquarters to Alice Springs because it suited the minister who lived there, and the new CEOs were handpicked and appointed by the CLP; departments having to change their letterheads and signage one month, then doing so again a short time later; the extraordinary situation of a Cabinet Minister for Alcohol Policy not being aware of changes to the Administrative Arrangements Order meaning they no longer had Alcohol Policy responsibility; a Local Government minister who described her local government bill reforms as the finest hour of the government, who was then dumped as minister weeks later and before the bill was debated in parliament; chaos in implementing headline government polices like the Homelands Extra Allowance – we still cannot get any minister to point to a community which has received the promised funds to improve homelands housing; and seeking to gag senior public servants in the parliament’s estimates process.
The chaos also extends to the non-government sector, one which provides critical family and community services to Territorians. These non-government services are essential to families in crisis. Non-government organisations often do the work far more efficiently than government could ever hope to achieve. Instead of valuing these services, they have been treated as shabbily as our public service. I am particularly reminded of the government writing to many service providers about cuts to their budget in the days leading up to Christmas last year, and another extraordinary circumstance where the CLP had only one piece of legislation to debate in two weeks of parliamentary sittings. That was last August. It was a continuing circus of chaos and dysfunction.
We are in the midst of the education dispute and the CLP does not seem to realise this dispute is not going away; as each day ticks over more information is coming to light about the real teacher losses from schools because the principals have had no choice but to tell staff. Staff have had no choice but to put their rsums in for the jobs, knowing how many will lose their jobs at that school.
Failing Territorians by not addressing the education needs of our children to give every child a good start in life and the opportunity of the best possible career hurts us all. It especially affects those most disadvantaged across our bush schools, our regional areas, and our Indigenous children.
Rejecting Better Schools funding was a political stunt, a ploy in relation to the Commonwealth government. They said no to an additional $96m for Indigenous kids in Stuart, $140m for Indigenous kids in Arafura, $126m for Indigenous kids in Arnhem, $109m for Indigenous kids in Namatjira, and $84m for Indigenous kids in Daly.
I look forward to a media release from the Education minster, the Treasurer or the Chief Minister confirming that level of funding for each of those electorates. Call your mate Tony Abbott and get the deal signed, because that is what you led people to believe. We are looking for the sign off, the media release, the fanfare.
The CLP is also stripping crucial resources out of our schools by slashing into its own education budget by 10%. NAPLAN results show we need more progress in improving results for our children, especially in bush and middle schools where the CLP teacher cuts will have a significant impact. Cutting teachers to improve results does not make sense. The government should focus on providing more individual attention in the classroom and not sacking teachers, putting at risk the work already done to improve our schools and opportunities for our children. The Minister for Education was on an overseas jaunt while NT schools were spiralling into meltdown with the budget cuts hitting the staffroom and people told of the coming cuts. He continues to cling to the fantasy that only 35 teachers will go, when we have already lost 50 teachers thanks to CLP cuts.
The Minister for Education has been flippant about the chaos saying, ‘No one jumped up and down when we lost 50 teachers. Now everyone is jumping up and down that we have lost 35.’ That was in the NT News two days ago. Fifty teachers have already been lost under the CLP. We know far more than 35 will go because they are not counting contract teachers. Whether you are on a contract or permanent, you are a teacher in a classroom teaching children. They are real teacher losses.
The CLP has also brought mayhem into our health system. There is an increase in double-bunking and wait times for medical assistance at Royal Darwin Hospital because they wanted to fill the medi-hotel with drunks instead. They turned their back on concrete plans for Palmerston hospital, wanting to go their own way in an untested plan on a new facility on a new site plucked off a map during the recent federal election campaign, turning their back on Commonwealth funding for an important health asset – $3m for supported accommodation for patients in Gove and support for renal patients. The Palmerston hospital decision causes a delay of about two years, but you do not hear the CLP being honest about that.
It is shameful to use the medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital to lock up drunks when it was designed to support patients coming in from regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory who needed supported accommodation. No one in the CLP is fighting for people in the bush who deserve access to the medi-hotel for support with their healthcare needs.
We have seen the flawed alcohol consequences. They laud the fact that people are in rehab. The first ones are coming out to drink again. Alcohol protection orders but no enforcement tools, what a farce! This alcohol system was described as an expensive waste of money by the Australian Medical Association, and any expert living and working in that field will tell you the same thing if you want to listen. We know the CLP does not listen.
They are claiming the work of improving healthcare assets out bush as though it was their own. There was a shameful period in Question Time from the new Health minister, the member for Araluen, when we know every one of those capital projects was delivered by the Labor government in Canberra. How embarrassing to laud that as a significant initiative under your government when not one cent came from you. It was all signed off and delivered before you came to government. Thank you, Warren Snowdon, member for Lingiari, for delivering on those important and critical health clinics in the bush.
In just a year the CLP government has scrapped the children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital, scrapped the hospital plans, come up with their own delaying it for at least two years, scrapped the medi-hotel and scrapped renal facilities in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. They have also scrapped the GP super clinic in the northern suburbs, scrapped the patient accommodation in Katherine and Gove, jam-packed our emergency departments up and down the Territory with drunks, and there has been no progress on a $13m upgrade to Gove District Hospital Accident and Emergency.
Let us look at the situation on the job front. You would hope, under a government that thinks it is business-friendly, you would see some positive news on the job front. No, not even there. Recent labour force figures show 7500 Territorians are looking for work as unemployment under the CLP has risen to 5.5%. We see increased staff unhappiness, morale dropping to all-time lows, industrial action across a raft of areas – all as a result of broken election commitments by the CLP – spiking in the cost of living and broken promises to support frontline workers. They are not supporting or respecting frontline workers, they are sacking frontline workers. Workers are forced to challenge the sense of the government’s decisions and struggling to support their families – teachers, firies and bus drivers. At one stage, police were speaking out.
It is unbelievable that this government parades through the charade that, somehow, they know what they are doing when it has been so chaotic and dysfunctional.
In the bush, people are genuinely concerned about jobs because they see them lost from schools, health clinics and the shires. Tender changes are threatening shires’ funding for housing repairs and maintenance, but it is shrugged off by the CLP. Contracts could go to fly-in fly-out southern companies but, hey, that does not matter. It does not matter if people in remote communities want critical repairs done to their houses. They will have to wait until a team flies in rather than have people employed locally by the shires to do the repairs and maintenance because the CLP does not really care.
Business confidence in the NT government has crashed by 22% in the first year, but that is okay because they believe they are okay. How can business work with a government that is not working with them? Their Business Advisory Council is a group of handpicked friends, not representatives of the industry organisations nominated by business. Why would they want to hear from anyone who is not in their close mate circle?
Potentially catastrophic is the reneging on the gas to Gove deal. I thank the federal minister for Resources, Ian Macfarlane, for saying he will secure 300 PJ of gas. The federal minister for the Coalition gets it and Adam Giles does not. There was no consultation with the mining sector over new financial levies on that sector until after the decision was made.
In dodgy deals for mates – my God, there has been a plethora in such a short time. We saw the CLP Renewable Management Board determine we should all have a spike in the cost of living. The $1m Renewable Management Board of old cronies did not even provide a final report, or, if they did, please show us. You will not show us because you operate under a shroud of secrecy. Any report informing anything you do is never released to the public. The CLP paid their mates nearly $1m for just six months’ work and no report to show for it. An interim report runs to about six pages; you could have whipped it up overnight.
We saw the influx of CLP mates, former MLAs, failed election candidates, filling up fifth floor positions then bouncing back into the department at various levels. Since Adam Giles has become Chief Minister, 11 extra people have been employed in the Office of the Chief Minister, 10 on six-figure salaries with two staff employed at the EO6 level, the highest available in the public service. They are being paid more than $300 000. We did not even have one at that level when in government; you have two. It is extraordinary!
There are persistent rumours of Queensland power suppliers being interested in our Power and Water assets – Northpower, to buddy up with their retailer who already has retail in this jurisdiction.
There are persistent rumours in the CLP interest and backroom discussions on the sale of Darwin port. We saw the handing over of water rights to Tina MacFarlane because she was the CLP candidate in Lingiari, while you scrapped the strategic Indigenous water reserve policy that had been worked on to represent the interests of traditional owners. Now there is a promise of millions of dollars to secure a deal for land leasing on the Tiwi Islands, mainly Melville. I hope you are consulting with the traditional owners because they have every right to hear what is proposed to happen to 10 000 ha of their land. They have every right to get the details, down to the last cent, of what will be spent, where it will go, what jobs will be involved, what training will be involved, where the profits will go, and how those profits will help them, because it is their land. However, there are more backroom discussions shrouded in secrecy.
I hope, at the very least, you are meeting with the Munupi who have the bulk of the 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands. However, I will not hold my breath because that is not how this government operates. It is not open and transparent, and certainly not accountable; it is a shambles.
There were rumours at the start of the week that the Deputy Chief Minister would be dumped. I said, ‘That’s not going to happen. This is the eve of sittings. They will not jettison the Deputy Chief Minister on the eve of sittings.’ We have the Chief Minister flying to Japan on Friday. Clearly, there are some nervous people around because we cannot go through the embarrassing diplomatic disaster of sacking a Chief Minister while overseas.
There will be more turmoil because there are deep divisions in the CLP ranks which cannot be healed. We saw that with the sacking of the member for Namatjira – dumped to the backbench. She has been kept quiet on promises, and if they do not eventuate she will not go quietly. It will be interesting to see what happens as we hear all manner of rumours.
However, the Territory is suffering through your chaos, dysfunction, arrogance and inability to understand that good policy comes from good partnerships – engaging with all sectors of the Northern Territory. Territorians deserve a far better government than this disgusting shambles.
We condemn you.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business: It barely deserves a response, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not spend a great deal of time on it. It is the same vile and vitriol we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition with nothing to add other than more vile and vitriol.
It is an unremarkable presentation driven by an unremarkable Leader of the Opposition who seeks to pop up like a strychnine sprinkler and spray the room with her lacerating opinions. We know that while she launches into us with her perceptions of instability the razor blade has to deal with the marshmallow on the other side. Frankly, there is nothing constructive in what she offered to this House. It was not even edifying for her.
If this is the quality of leadership the Leader of the Opposition would bring to the people of the Northern Territory, I can well understand why there is concern about her leadership amongst her own ranks.
Doubtless, she will continue to do this because it is in her DNA. She knows no other way than to communicate through the malignant language she continues to use and cannot bring herself to, even for a few moments, raise above the personal attack other than when she produces literature shoved into people’s letterboxes peddling mistruths. We have copies of the flyer which went out and it is completely wrong. That is the problem with the Leader of the Opposition; she is not an honest person and treats people with scathing contempt. The moment somebody challenges her about her style and the type of person she is …
Ms Lawrie: Just cannot handle the truth.
Mr ELFERINK: She cannot listen silently, as we on this side have listened silently to her diatribe. She must respond because she is incapable of demonstrating any restraint or discipline whatsoever. She is a toxic Leader of the Opposition, who leads in a toxic fashion, which has even spilt into this House. I saw her deride her leader of opposition business a few months ago in a most embarrassing fashion. It is small wonder she is on the nose amongst her own colleagues.
The way she incompetently set up her member for Nightcliff yesterday was embarrassing. To have trotted her out in the fashion she did – in truth, the member for Nightcliff would be desperately embarrassed by what happened yesterday because she was not prepared and did not follow her own counsel. The Leader of the Opposition
is prepared to use her colleagues as human shields in her relentless pursuit of dishonesty and untruths. Now, that is out of my system.
I am proud of being part of the Northern Territory government and proud of the things we are achieving, as we are proud of the things we are achieving. What this comes down to is the Leader of the Opposition has not got over the fact they lost the election. The Leader of the Opposition is only interested in running down anything she can. There is no support for any positive programs, just diatribe, rumour and innuendo. She said it herself, she relies on rumours.
She launched into the member for Daly’s reputation in a most unspeakable fashion, supported by nothing more than rumour. She has launched into the reputation of other people in this House, including public servants, and reflected on people like the Water Controller, suggesting he has been complicit in a corrupt act. Yet in the same breath she says she is defending public servants. Any public servant who disagrees with her world view is up for the chop should she be successful at the next Territory election, and she has made that abundantly clear. She names public servants in this House. She names people in this House and refuses to utter those slanders, libels and defamations outside. It is the nature of this Leader of the Opposition. The opposition is not well-served by this person and is only concerned with demonstrating itself to be a malignant force, exactly what it is achieving.
Never in the history of this parliament am I aware of an opposition being put on a warning, simultaneously, for its conduct. They complained, when in government, that the opposition was a rabble. Rabble is not even close to describing the conduct I have witnessed today. I could continue because, after five minutes of doing what she did for half-an-hour, I am getting a nasty taste in my mouth because I do not find this pleasant, so I will talk about other things.
I want to talk about a mandatory alcohol policy aimed at people in our community with an alcohol problem, a policy we are proud of. Will it work in the long run? I hope so. We are willing to bet so. It was far more effective than a BDR which did nothing to stem the amount of alcohol consumed in our communities. It was not reflected in the figures.
Whilst the Banned Drinker Register was operational, the most frequent flyer went through the system 117 times. According to the government, this person was not able to purchase alcohol. How did that person, 114 times, obtain liquor whilst on the Banned Drinker Register? Many other frequent flyers were not quite as frequent as the chairman’s lounge member 117 times, but there were many platinum members, a handful of gold members, and a bucket load of silver members, all who would have been on the Banned Drinker Register. We were apprehending people for public drunkenness at the same rate in spite of the fact 2500 were on a list. How did that happen? That should have solved the problem.
You could well believe, listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of opposition business earlier today, that the Banned Drinker Register was the most amazing policy ever visited upon liquor consumption in the Northern Territory, not borne out by the facts, borne out by an opinion of a policy that is not statistically supportable.
The other policies they whinge about are policies they were not prepared to subscribe to prior to the last election. We went to the election with a promise to deal with open speed limits and have moved down that path in accordance with that promise.
We promised to introduce one punch homicide legislation, something the opposition was highly resistant to. We have kept that promise, and nobly so. We promised to introduce serious sexual offender legislation and have kept that promise, and rightfully so. We promised, prior to the last election, to introduce mandatory sentencing for assaults which occasioned harm, and we have, and rightly so.
I will pause there because that is what they promised prior to the last election. In fact, they said they had introduced it except it did not work in any functional way and, as a consequence, we sought to fix it so it did. However, if you read the media releases from the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, they said exactly what our media releases said, the only difference is we introduced a mandatory minimum of three months rather than, ‘You will be incarcerated’. This meant people were being incarcerated until the rising of the court. There was no effective mandatory sentencing and, therefore, it was designed to appease the courts and the lawyers, as well as be portrayed as a mandatory sentencing policy. In fact, it did not achieve what was promised. Therefore, they launch into a diatribe in this House and say it is all wrong. I refer members of this House to the debates surrounding mandatory sentencing for assaults, and they then failed to vote against it – could not bring themselves to because they did not want to be on the record for resisting something they passionately resisted in this House. They are in no way covering themselves in glory.
Talk about a confused response. I heard a very confused response where the leader of opposition business, the would-be Chief Minister, managed to do exactly what the member for Nelson did for years in this House, which is say, ‘I agree with your sentiment but I will not support you’. What does that mean? What can people rely on? It is an each way bet and typical of this opposition. They are prepared to do everything by an each way bet.
All the matters the Leader of the Opposition listed in cuts – I would like to tally the value of the things she promises. I have heard about $1bn worth of promises from the members opposite in the last 12 months. Where is that $1bn coming from?
We hear demands during adjournment debates that a school needs this, that place needs this, whatever needs that support, and why are we not helping out. You have the luxury of opposition and do not have to do the costings. Perhaps it is time we listed all the promises the members opposite make and put money against them to see how much they are prepared to spend. We can ask them where the money will come from. Do you borrow it, do you hope it falls out of the ether, or do you tax Territorians more? These are the problems of government and something members of the opposition do not want to turn their minds to.
We have the legacy of the projected $5.5bn debt, something the former Treasurer, now would-be Chief Minister, believes is a matter of minor import. I do not believe that. We are attempting to do something about it and all we hear is screeching and squealing from the people opposite, those who caused part of the problem. Life would be good if there was a clean slate after every election, but that is not how it works. We have to inherit the legacy left to us by former governments.
In Correctional Services, I acknowledge the former minister made some ground in developing policies, and I am grateful to him. However, having made that observation, it was not driven the way it should have been. Since day one of becoming Minister for Correctional Services I have passionately driven a number of policies and extended them in directions I did not expect to just over a year ago.
I am proud it will not be too long before we have an MOU in place with the Gumatj Association in Nhulunbuy, which will see a permanent work camp there. This is a pathway for low-security prisoners to do work in the community and to work their way into full-time jobs in that community. That will be a good result, and we hope to reproduce that on Groote Eylandt and the Tiwi Islands with the permission of traditional owners, and in places like Borroloola.
I am also working hard to advance a commercial division of Correctional Services so we can use our product to defray the costs we in have running a corrections system. If we can defray some of the costs we can direct some of the money into programs, say in remote communities, which will save people going into custody in the first place.
I am currently working on a number of policy initiatives, now child protection has fallen within my domain as Minister for Child Protection, which will help develop resilience in families in new and innovative ways which will not cost more. In fact, I hope the results I anticipate from those programs will cost less, which will mean we can put even more money into remote communities in particular, but also other places, to develop better results in communities. I hope to do so with as much imagination, energy, and intelligence as I can muster. If we can do that and change results by rolling out effective policies, that will be, selfishly, a proud moment for me.
This government is signalling to the rest of the world we are open for business and is currently in a number of negotiations. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has done much in his area to develop and promote the Northern Territory, and the Minister for Tourism has done much to promote the Territory to the rest of the world. Whilst we hear members opposite complain and whinge about it and describe it as a waste of money, it shows more imagination and insight than we saw from the former government.
Their tourist policy was labelled SOS: not very imaginative. It was poor judgment leading to a sales pitch which saw tourist numbers continue to fall. To hear members opposite complain about the current tourism program, when they were responsible for a tourism product which saw tourist numbers fall badly – they have to be a little more careful than they are at present.
I could go on ad infinitum. In fact, I regret the first five minutes of my speech because I do not like that personal stuff, but it is like that when we hear so much from them. I thought I would serve a bit back, and they did not like it. They interjected the whole way through. I would like to think I am a better member of parliament and will not stoop to that again.
The Leader of the Opposition struggles to help herself. I ask for an improvement of debate in this House so people in the Northern Territory can hear reasoned debate. I ask all members, particularly members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to stick to the facts. Surely there are enough points of difference between us without having to …
Ms Lawrie: You were clearly not listening.
Mr ELFERINK: No, what I heard was the usual diatribe and poison. Obviously you will not be told, which is a shame, but I will continue working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, as we all should.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion and will give a regional story around the chaos created by the CLP. The member for Port Darwin was trying to defend the indefensible in his speech because he is the hard worker on the team. He is the intellect, and I am afraid the CLP government is assaulting that intellect, which is probably why he was so frustrated and jaded in the first five minutes of his response. It was not about the opposition; it was about dealing with the chaos within the party and the parliamentary wing he so dearly loves.
I will give the government a regional story of chaos within the CLP and how it affects the people of the Barkly. Three major things happened very early after I was first elected. Seventy metres of the Barkly Highway washed out completely, John Howard put a nuclear waste dump in my lap and the world fell over with the global financial crisis. As a member of the Labor government I embarked upon the exercise of saving Territory jobs, keeping the Territory on track, and delivering what the CLP has inherited: an economy that is the envy of the nation.
That is part of the incredible journey I was privileged to experience. Working with the government in Barkly I remember the Tennant Creek main street enhancement program and the work going on around that; the first land release in 30 years with 54 lots of land sold, two releases and now a whole new subdivision under construction; the Barkly Work Camp, one of the essential platforms in Labor’s new era of Corrections; doubling the size of our renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek from eight beds to 16; a brand new sobering-up shelter built in Tennant Creek. Remember, this is in partnership with the federal government. It was not all Territory money, but it was about good governance and working in partnership. It was about getting the best deal for the Territory and the Barkly under a functional government.
The new sobering-up shelter dealt with the most disadvantaged in our community. There was also a brand new police station, a new Accident and Emergency section to our hospital, a new school at Borroloola, and a purpose-built gym at Tennant Creek High School. I was an ex-teacher from Tennant Creek High School running an alternative education program from that campus. I sweated in the old gym on presentation nights, functions and gigs, and the school community could not fit in. The Chief Minister and I listened to those people and out of it came a purpose-built gymnasium for Tennant Creek High School. There was a record investment in education across Tennant Creek and the region through the Building the Education Revolution; a bridge over the McArthur River; and 20 km of new Barkly Highway constructed; the finality of flood immunity and new highway provision across the Gilbert Swamp on the Stuart Highway; heavy vehicle fatigue management truck parking bays, five just in the Barkly; major upgrades to the Carpentaria and Tablelands Highways; and upgrades to the Barkly Stock Route.
There was also the first ever Integrated Regional Transport Strategy, with a new route from Borroloola to Katherine, a daylight express to Elliott to get people to Tennant Creek and Alice Springs for hospital and for service delivery and a new route to Ali Curung. As I said, there was a daylight express between Tennant Creek and Alice Springs to make it easier for people; upgrades to Purkiss Memorial Reserve, our main sport and recreation precinct in Tennant Creek; the Ali Curung water treatment plant; and the Alpurrurulam wind, solar and diesel. I cannot go on, unfortunately, because I will run out of time.
That was what I experienced from a functional government. Then, on 25 August 2012, it changed. One very wise member of the previous government told me democracy is about the people. The people will always be right so bite the bullet and do what you can to ensure they are a one term government. That is what this opposition is all about.
The member for Port Darwin must lament not being part of a team because he looks at our side and sees a team. He saw a team in government, and he sees a team in opposition. He must lament that because chaos from government comes from dysfunctional personal relationships, professional relationships, and the poor policy settings from Cabinet on the run.
What happened on 25 August was a reality. The people decided. The irony is, people in the bush decided. I do not have time to go into how that happened, but on 26 August I was at a function and was accosted by a woman I have known for many years, having taught her children. She is an alcoholic with a serious problem. She thanked me. ‘Kumanjayi, the Banned Drinker Register has been scrapped. It’s great news and I thank you for doing that.’ I pulled her aside and had an in-depth conversation. Unfortunately, she was alcohol affected, but I had a serious conversation with her. ‘That was not me, I do not support that’. It was open slather again. That was the first day this government took office. Word reverberated through the bush it was back on – no shirt, no shoes, no ID. It came back and we are struggling in Tennant Creek and the Barkly to deal with the effects of that policy decision alone.
We went for 12 months with nothing in its place and we finally see a roll-out and appropriation of $100m but it does not feature Tennant Creek. What is happening in Tennant Creek? People are thinking we are forgotten. It looks even worse, from my perspective, with the new Chief Minister, the second Chief Minister; it looks like he is determined to starve me out. I was a member of the Labor Party and worked behind the scenes for a Labor member in Barkly who battled our cause in democracy for 10 years. That was Maggie Hickey, and she starved for 10 years under the punitive CLP government, but things changed.
It looks like we have returned to the punitive CLP government, and this Chief Minister, the second one in the continual revolving door of the CLP ministry, looks like he is determined to try that strategy again, because in Tennant Creek we saw public service travel cuts. Then we started to see jobs going. Then we saw the power, water and sewerage price hikes. That is about the time – within a couple of months of this government – a caf owner said people in town had stopped buying sandwiches at his caf. I explored that. It was because they were frightened and intimidated. The environment crushed consumer confidence, and it started to crush business confidence.
Then the bigger picture started to emerge. There were major cuts to the infrastructure budget and the middle level contractor started to become concerned. Now, 14 months in, it has reached alarming levels where I am approached regularly about this real concern. Is it just the Barkly? I am wondering if it is. Is it a punitive strategy to get rid of me? I hope not.
When we talk about the CLP chaos we have a well-referenced alternative, it is about priorities. We are determined to continue to pressure the Minister for Education to go back to Cabinet and demand priorities for Territory children. ‘Okay, we cannot build that bridge for a few more years, we will push that out. We will not upgrade that section of road, we will maintain it for a few years, but we will not cut teachers and will not impact on education because that is our future.’ It does not matter what we do, if we do not have these kids prepared and families supported what is the use of it all? It is about priorities, and that is what we argue.
We know times are challenging economically, we had a step-out fiscal strategy as well but it was very different from you guys. We started to see the stories emerge around confidence shot to pieces and people are now asking a basic question. This government is all about blame, but what has the CLP done? The Chief Minister rides into town and starts with the rhetoric, ‘The previous member had four years and he’s done nothing for the Barkly’. I rattled off a little list to counter that debate, and I do not have to be too forceful because the people of Barkly judged me in 2012.
The Chief Minister rides into town and spends time trying to deliver the negative, vindictive rhetoric to run me down. He leaves town and we have an Office of the Chief Minister that will listen to the issues. Chief Minister, we have a spike in petrol sniffing, we have serious alcohol problems, we have an alcohol accord in Tennant Creek regrouping and trying to do things about alcohol abuse and work with the community, but we have decisions around selling the 750 ml bottles of white wine in plastic instead of glass. It is pretty desperate when that is the level of debate we are having in the absence of any alcohol policy impacting on our community.
The Banned Drinker Register was scrapped and we have been left to fend for ourselves. Chief Minister, we need Fly Tiwi, we need Hardy Aviation supported, and we need you to meet with them. We cannot lose that link with Darwin the capital city – the opportunity to connect with the envy of the nation, the economy of the Northern Territory, and the jewel in the crown, the Top End. We need that link.
Chief Minister, we need our women’s refuge enhanced. They want to talk to you. There are things you can do. We are not asking you to change the world, they are pragmatic things.
You will be considered chaotic, your record is atrocious. If you want to pull it back get into the regions, come to Tennant Creek, and talk with us. We need a residential bail program supported. We have juvenile delinquents and I have spent half my life working with them. We have a problem and need some support networks. We need a residential bail program where the juvenile diversion program can be supported. These initiatives, where we are labelled as socialist Laborites, are basically designed to save kids – keep them out of the prison system and, in Liberal economic rationalism, it saves dollars in the long run. The research is there. A residential bail hostel in Tennant Creek will not break the bank.
The Barkly youth providers want to talk to the AG. They respect the AG and know he is the hardest working member on that side and the person who must be suffering trying to deal with the chaos. As I said, it is an assault on his intellect. That must be hard going. I was in the opposite position when I was in government; I was surrounded by incredible intellect, drive, and enthusiasm that brought me up ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it is now 9 pm. Sorry, but I thought you would finish on that.
Debate suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a travel report from the member for Nightcliff pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about the recently launched CD/DVD and information for the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. Many of us know about the exploits of business people and Territorians who tried to grow rice at Lambells Lagoon many years ago.
The story of the Humpty Doo Rice Trail began in 1953 with two men at a party in Hollywood, Los Angeles, and ended in 1964 with one man standing in a rice mill near Darwin. The story reached across the Pacific Ocean, from Los Angeles to Humpty Doo, and it meandered around the Adelaide River floodplain and across a bumpy road to Coolalinga, then, of course, down to what is now the Fogg Dam area.
It was inspired by grand visions of taming a new frontier, settling northern Australia, and supplying rice to Asia. However, this vision was swept away by an unfamiliar environment that would not support farming methods and machinery from distant lands. In recent times we have seen people from overseas coming to our country thinking they can bring their technology and expertise, and it does not suit our landscape.
We know all about the poor magpie geese being blamed for ruining this project, but that is not correct, as most of us know. There were other culprits. There were design issues, water issues, financial issues, planning issues, and probably poor research issues. Territory Rice Ltd was a company established by Americans and encouraged by the Australian government of the day. It spent a lot of money trying to grow rice commercially at Humpty Doo, as it was called then but, strictly speaking, it was Lambells Lagoon.
How the money was spent is questionable, and the land never lived up to the expectations. Governments of the day also spent a great deal of money building roads and installing the power supply and other infrastructure. Early in the Wet Season, when irrigation water was needed for young rice, Adelaide River water was too saline for the rice varieties then available. It could be January before fresh water was available so, in 1956, Fogg Dam was constructed at a cost of $100 000. However, it lacked the vital channel to convey the water from the dam to the rice bays, then it was too wet to dig the required channel until six years later. Of course, that would have cost of lot of money.
Interestingly, during my research I found Fogg Dam was named after James Fogg, Managing Director of Utah Australia, one of the construction contractors for Territory Rice Ltd. Fogg Dam was built and there were issues with that, so they built Harrison Dam. Harrison Dam is one of the pretty aspects of our rural area, and also an area with magpie geese and ducks, and is available for people in the goose and duck seasons. That was built in 1958 at a cost of $80 000. However, it had no natural catchment area and had to be filled by pumping water from Adelaide River.
This created another problem. When pumping, Territory Rice used so much power the Northern Territory administration had to increase the capacity of the power station. In addition, pumps kept breaking down, eventually stopping after lightning set fire to a power substation. The dam never filled completely and was hardly used. The large pump installed at Middle Point to pump water from Adelaide River into the irrigation channel would have cost a small fortune, yet it could only be used while the river was fresh from the end of the Wet Season to the middle of the Dry Season, not when irrigation was most needed.
A great deal of money was spent on this project by all parties. Over $50 000 was spent on infrastructure for electricity to power pumps and the Territory Rice camp. Electricity still had to be paid for but, in fact, never was. Money was spent on harvesters and other large machinery. It is not known how much, but it would have been considerable.
In the USA, auger headers could be traded in for new machines after three years when the sealed non-greaseable bearings became unreliable and other parts were worn. The boggy Adelaide River floodplains were harder on these and other machines. Replacement parts took a long time to arrive, probably by boat in those days but could have been by plane, and trade-in was not an option in Australia. After a long, sad few years the companies and people involved went into liquidation and, under new management, local farmers who had worked for Territory Rice Ltd were able to bring their practical experience to the project.
Don Buck, Arthur Parker, Bob Parker and Ted Kilpatrick formed Rice Development Pty Ltd. At the launch of this rice trail about two weeks ago at Tourism NT Darwin’s headquarters on the corner of Bennett and Smith Streets, or as we know it, the old Reserve Bank, I met Ted Kilpatrick. He has made a photographic book on his time with Territory Rice. I also met some of the old diggers as I call them, who were involved with the then department of Water Resources in the Northern Territory Administration working with the farmers in regard to water hydrology trying to assist them with farming. It was nice to meet a couple of these guys because they had worked with my father, who was then Director of Water Resources, so it was a special time for me. I was asked by Friends of Fogg Dam to launch the rice trail documentation, and it was nice to meet some of the people there.
They too had problems which I will not detail, but a lot of information has been collated. It is being driven by the Friends of Fogg Dam and my compliments to Heather Boulden and Jeremy Hemphill, some of the key people in Friends of Fogg Dam. They have done a tremendous job pulling this project together with assistance and funding from the Northern Territory government through the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport as it was when they first received the grant. They have produced the publication and I compliment them, and all members of Friends of Fogg Dam, because they have put this on the website and developed a DVD. It is interactive and gives a really good picture into the history of people in the Territory who tried to grow rice successfully. It is interesting as the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries currently has experimental rice trials in Katherine.
The Humpty Doo Rice Trail starts in Darwin. You can visit the old - it is a big blue pump of some description owned by the Kennon family. You start at Winnellie and go to Fogg Dam and to Adelaide River. It is a large blue water pump. It is outside Kennon’s on Menmuir Street, Winnellie, and it was purchased for the rice project but was forfeited when Territory Rice was unable to pay customs duty. The rice mill is at Coolalinga on the Stuart Highway as you are driving south. Many of you probably do not realise it, but it is the large rusty shed on the left side before you get to Coolalinga shops. It looks like an old hanger, but it is one of the old rice sheds and is an historic building.
I am unsure who owns the property now, but as a child I would go to that shed with my parents and collect dog meat from Jim McGorry, a pet food shooter, for the boarding kennels my mother owned. That shed and the complex have a long history. It is a large tin shed but you cannot enter the grounds because it is private. It was designed and built by Arthur Hofmann, one of the world’s foremost rice milling experts, in 1957 and operated until 1966.
Keep going down the Stuart Highway to the Arnhem Highway and turn right into Lambells Lagoon at Anzac Parade. There is an electricity substation on the way built to provide electricity to these projects, obviously at great cost to the government. I do not know if the government of the day was paid for its commitment. At the corner of Anzac Parade - the road into Fogg Dam and Middle Point School - and the Arnhem Highway, there is a government radio transmission base. Territory Rice Ltd planned a small airfield there to replace Kent Airstrip. Of course, it never happened and, as we know, is for radio transmission.
Along Anzac Parade on the left hand side is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation village, which is what it was in those days. A centre for agriculture research for soil, rice varieties and hydrological research was based there. That is now Middle Point. The Middle Point area has a long history regarding research. There is signage available and information on this documentation.
Fogg Dam itself, as many of us know, is the place to go if you like nature and looking at large crocodiles, big snakes and lots of birds. However, there is a large saltwater crocodile in that dam now and signs saying, ‘Do not walk across the dam wall because the big crocodile has not been caught’.
It is a great project and I compliment Jeremy Hemphill and Heather Boulden and Friends of Fogg Dam, and all those who have contributed to the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. It really puts the Territory on the map when it comes to providing eco-based and wildlife-based tourism, which I know that is important to many people, particularly Europeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Humpty Doo Rice Trail.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: I encourage anyone who reads or listens to this adjournment to get a copy. Look on the Internet for the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. It is a fascinating insight into our history in the agricultural industry, and I know farmers of today learnt a lot from the project.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on an issue in my electorate which is causing great angst and stress. We are in the final term of the school year and teachers, students and parents should be focusing on assignments, exams, final reports and the holidays. However, a number of members of our school community are going through a stressful period of uncertainty. The Northern Territory Open Education Centre is located in my electorate in Nightcliff. It has around 650 students across the Territory. It is a unique and important school. It has unique facilities to teach in this environment, teaching some of our most isolated students.
The Northern Territory Open Education Centre has been at its current location in Chrisp Street, Rapid Creek for over 25 years. It has studio classrooms enabling teachers to use technology to teach students across the Territory. Teachers also have work stations set up so they can communicate with students easily without disturbing other staff.
The Essington School Darwin indicated it needed to expand. It is currently located at the old Rapid Creek Primary School site next to NTOEC. The government had flagged moving NTOEC to a purpose-built facility at Darwin Middle School which would have meant one move for staff and students and they would have access to a purpose-built facility.
In June, the Minister for Education flagged the NTOEC move. Following this, the shadow minister for Education and I requested a briefing on the issue, something the minister constantly advises us to do. The day before our scheduled briefing, the minster issued a media release stating NTOEC would move to a temporary site until a new one was finalised. This was a temporary home with no firm plans or budget for a purpose-built facility. Where was the consultation?
Minister, you said in estimates hearings, ‘I believe the first thing to do is to consult with the Open Education Centre council’. However, you announced the move in a media release. There was no consultation. Those involved either read it in the media release or, I understand, staff at NTOEC were called into a meeting hours before the media release. No consultation, just a one-page media release leaving many unanswered questions.
The move of NTOEC to a temporary home at Nightcliff Middle School does not only cause disruption to NTOEC staff and students, but it is planned they move into the NT Music School purpose-built music space with stages, video and sound recording and editing studios. As one member of the music school said, ‘Aside from the sheer inconvenience of the move for everyone, there are issues about the NT Music School move which remain unresolved. Among them is suitability of the accommodation for individual tuition and ensemble work, not to mention the videoing, sound recording and editing.’
I also understand NTOEC will take over further space at Nightcliff Middle School which is purpose-built for ICT for Learning. This is purpose-built information technology space where experts in their field were assisting our classroom teachers deliver education in modern surroundings, but your government has decimated that area. You have all but shut down ICT for Learning. It is not the award winning learning environment it once was. Staff are devastated and feel forgotten. Their programs are on hold, and I understand they are not taking any bookings for professional development. There might be a few staff left, but the centre is essentially closed.
Minister, you previously assured this House ICT for Learning was simply moving. Staff deserve a detailed explanation.
The NT Music School has been relocated to Sanderson Middle School, an area which currently has Department of Education Student Services located in it. I understand this service is being removed from the school and relocated to the Harbourview Plaza, away from the students and teachers it supports.
There is no internal access road at Sanderson Middle School to allow for the frequent packing and moving of instruments for outside events, and public transport access to and from the school at times when ensembles are practicing is uncertain. In fact, school pick up and drop off is more difficult at Sanderson. The new location of the NT Music School is far more isolated compared to its current location, which raises safety issues.
Minister, you have caused great disruption; a domino effect of moves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars with no consultation. Staff in these schools are extremely worried and stressed. It might seem trivial, but they are wondering where they will be teaching, will they all fit, and if their desks will fit. I understand they will be in two different areas at Nightcliff Middle School.
There are many questions and a lack of consultation, something you were quick to criticise others of in the past. May I remind you, Minister for Education, you have said in the past telling people what you are doing is not consultation, it is arrogance.
Minister for Education, why the rush? Why was there no consultation? Minister, you did not meet with staff, students or parents, or the broader Nightcliff/Rapid Creek community. To quote the NTOEC school council:
This is a school we are talking about.
Last week you mentioned in debate in this House if students in the bush lose subjects they could take classes by distant education. With your government’s teacher cuts you expect NTOEC to help out yet you are cutting their resources by relocating the school.
Minister, as the local member of parliament for this area, I have a number of concerns and questions from my community, teachers, parents, students and residents which need answers. The Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area already has a growing traffic problem, particularly around school drop off and pick up time. We have five schools, three childcare centres, and a three-year old kindy located within our community - a large number of educational institutions within a small area. Nightcliff and Rapid Creek is popular with families, and this variety and choice of education is one of the reasons.
The Essington School Darwin is located on the old Rapid Creek Primary School site, a suburban primary school built for 300 or so students who would have mainly walked to school from surrounding streets. It has - I am unsure of the exact numbers - a strong and growing student population of many hundreds of students. In allowing The Essington School Darwin to move into the NTOEC building student numbers will surely grow.
The traffic and road safety issue is already causing huge concerns for local residents. With this potential growth we need a detailed traffic study, one that works with and involves our local residents and schools to ensure we look at all issues. There are issues such as parking around schools, and the safety of students and residents walking or riding. We are seeing huge traffic flow problems not just around the schools; this problem affects a large part of the area. We only have four roads in or out of the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area due to the peninsula. Congestion during peak times and the flow of traffic is a huge issue.
I acknowledge the commitment made by the Chief Executive of the Department of Education on radio to undertake a traffic study. The community and I look forward to working through this detail, but I stress this is a pressing and concerning issue. A number of people have come to see me about this, and it has turned into many issues.
Minister for Education, on behalf of all involved, particularly local residents, staff and students, I ask you to slow down and consult. One must question the time frame. What is the rush? This is causing great stress, particularly to teachers and students in this final school term.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on family violence. I am personally worried about the high level of domestic violence in our community and want to do more to prevent it.
I believe some Aboriginal men need a greater supportive framework in place to help them break away from welfare, stay out of the justice system, avoid alcohol abuse, and prevent family violence. I am keen to work and engage with community leaders and prevent family violence.
I believe men from a broad cross-section of communities need to come together and discuss the issue of family violence.
I am keen to hear what men think about the government’s current approach, and look forward to discussing where the government needs to concentrate more effort. As pointed out by others, violence has been so entrenched in some communities, and on the Tiwi Islands, it makes families dysfunctional.
Indigenous females are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence-related assaults as non-Indigenous females. In 2006-07, 48% of Indigenous homicide victims were female. We know women are still being bashed and certain children are still being abused. It is not part of anybody’s culture. We have to work as a nation to eradicate the belief it is part of Aboriginal culture to bash women.
Our senior Aboriginal member, Alison Anderson, acknowledges the causes of family violence are complex. Alcohol and drug abuse, for example, are likely to be major causes. The role of males in Aboriginal society has been significantly diminished. This has contributed in a major way to a breakdown and collapse of Aboriginal society and community life as it is today. The impact on Aboriginal males has been both negative and devastating. For example, chronic alcoholism, family violence, high imprisonment rate, deaths in custody, youth suicide, and antisocial behaviour are just a few negative manifestations being witnessed today. Indigenous males need support in recognising the significance of loss of self-esteem and self-respect through alienation and loss of culture and country.
It has been recognised that a revival of culture and spiritual values can provide a sense of identity and strength. The empowerment of Indigenous males is crucial to raising self-esteem, quality of life, health status, and spiritual wellbeing. Indigenous males must take leading roles to improve their own health status and that of our community. Community involvement, consultation, and providing the opportunity for Indigenous males to define and take control of issues that affect them are paramount to achieving positive and successful outcomes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I share some stories of culture and community from the Barkly. Two Barkly restaurants dished up excellence in Territory dining four years in a row. Anna’s Restaurant at Bluestone Motel, Tennant Creek, was awarded the Gold Plate for Best Family Restaurant 2013 on Monday 14 October. The Gold Plate Awards, organised by the Australian Hotels Association NT, showcases the very best of the Territory’s dining venues, and all categories are hotly contested. ‘We were very happy to win this award. It’s a real honour’, said owner, Margaret Galway. The staff and management put in a lot of effort. Margaret’s two managers are Scott Berry and Alesha Bacon.
Previously, Fernanda's Restaurant won three Gold Plate Awards. The family-owned restaurant in Tennant Creek took out the Best Family Restaurant title in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Fernanda’s is run by Fernanda and Louis de Sousa and their son, Helio de Sousa, who is the chef.
Setting a good example for community support in Tennant Creek, local Jameson Casson is a finalist in the NT Young Australian of the Year Awards 2014 for his contributions to the community. This 28-year old is a valuable contributor to his community and Jameson’s interest in his community has not gone unnoticed. On Australia Day 2013, he was awarded the Tennant Creek Australian of the Year Junior Award for his contributions. More recently, he won the Arnold ‘Puggy’ Hunter Award for his volunteering efforts at the Stronger Futures Alice 3on3. The NT Young Australian of the Year winner will be announced on 7 November 2013.
Binge Thinking Not Drinking video wins media award: Barkly Shire Council’s Binge Thinking Not Drinking program has won the Best Station ID or Community Service Announcement Video Category of the 2013 National Remote Indigenous Media Festival Awards. Released earlier this year, Binge Thinking Not Drinking showcases music productions and performances around petrol sniffing and alcohol choices. Delivered through Commonwealth funding, the video was packaged by the Barkly Shire Council and Desert Pea Media, and showcases the amazing and creative works of the young people and community members of Alpurrurulam.
Local football players star in NTFL season debut: three Tennant Creek players have been selected to play for the Central Australian Football Club, better known as the Redtails, in the Northern Territory Football League Premier League. Local players Thomas Gillett and Andrew Baker were in the season debut on 4 October, and Andrew Baker and Farron James played the second match on 12 October. Other Barkly players could also feature in future games. The concept, developed over three years, aims to provide opportunities for young men from Central Australia to play at the highest level in the NTFL.
Tennant’s Trent takes out eightball title: Tennant Creek’s Trent Wilson took out the NT Junior Eightball Title for the under 12s during his debut performance at state-level competition at the Memorial Club in late September. The 11-year old primary school student was not the only star in his team. In the under 18s, Luke Evans secured a spot for the nationals in Melbourne, and newcomer Aiden Renfrey-Carroll won the Ben Crawley Encouragement Award.
Volunteer of the year: Keven Stout, who is Presiding Unit Officer with the Tennant Creek Northern Territory Emergency Service, has been presented with the Volunteer of the Year Award.
Tennant Creek high school student finalist in Google Doodle Contest: Denella from Barkly College in Tennant Creek is the NT finalist in the Year 9-10 group for the Doodle 4 Google competition. This year, Google invited students to create a Google doodle depicting their vision for, ‘If I was an explorer I would …’ The winning doodle will be shown on the Google homepage for a day for millions of Australians to enjoy.
Tennant trainee scoops NT award: Louise Maxwell won the coveted Trainee of the Year category in the NT Training Awards in early September. Louise, who moved to Tennant Creek in January this year, won the award after completing a traineeship in population health with the NT government. She now works for the local Sexual Assault Referral Centre.
Paul Harris Fellow award for local mum: Helen Marsh was presented with the prestigious Rotary Club Award for her tireless work in the community by the Rotary Club of Tennant Creek in July this year.
Driver education program produces first graduates: a group of 36 Indigenous participants from the Barkly completed the first stage of a driver education program in July. DriveSafe NT Remote, which is being rolled out in Tennant Creek, encourages Indigenous Territorians to gain their driver’s license by helping them with the paperwork and teaching them safe driving skills. The initiative is run by the Territory government in partnership with Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation.
Kids’ book draws on Cheeky Dog talent: Tennant’s most famous artist, Dion Beasley, has illustrated a new children’s book. Famous for his Cheeky Dog designs, Dion’s drawings were used to illustrate Too Many Cheeky Dogs, written by Katherine-based writer, Johanna Bell. Published by Allen and Unwin, the book was released in June.
Local woman appointed to advisory group: Valda Shannon, who helped develop an award winning suicide prevention program, Suicide Story, as part of her role with the Central Australian Mental Health Association was appointed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Advisory Group in June. The group provides confidential and expert advice to federal government ministers on strategic and practical ways to prevent suicide and improve the mental health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Scholarship winner in Tennant: Angeline Bill was amongst three Territory recipients of the Chief Minister’s Scholarship for Women. Angeline, who was awarded $2000 to assist with her studies in May this year, is currently working on a Certificate IV in Community Services.
New Regional Development Committee: a new regional development committee was launched in Tennant Creek in May this year by the Northern Territory government. The Tennant Creek Regional Development Committee will have direct access to all levels of government and senior levels of the bureaucracy. An internal Barkly Regional Development Working Group consisting of representatives from the Departments of Regional Development, Women’s Policy, Business, Arts and Museums and Tourism NT was also established. The role of the group is to work across the government and with the new regional development committee to develop proposals and make recommendations that will enhance the tourism profile of the Barkly Region, in particular, Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill.
Chief Minister opens regional office in Tennant Creek: Chief Minister Adam Giles officially opened the regional office of his department in Tennant Creek on 4 October. Mr Giles said the opening of the office, which will be headed by Steve Edgington as the acting Barkly Region Director, is a sign of the government’s commitment to economic development in the Barkly.
That was a highlight of some incredibly talented people, some fantastic role models in our community. Also, several acknowledgements of what the government has done in re-establishing an economic development committee in the town, which is great. The previous government initiated their own economic development committees, and they were very important. It is good to see the CLP has continued in that tradition.
I have already mentioned the Chief Minister’s office, and the Chief Minister has a commitment to economic development. Chief Minister, once again that is the incredibly creative and talented side of our community and just some of the great stories. However, the dark side is we have unacceptable rates of domestic violence. We have increasing crime with assaults in Tennant Creek, you cited that yourself. We have had a spat of property crime which refuses to abate. We need support for our women’s refuge. We need an intervention into juvenile justice, particularly in our residential bail program. We would welcome investment in regional programs for youth at risk and for juvenile offenders. We desperately need an intervention into our serious alcohol problem in Tennant Creek. We need a reinvestment in the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. At the moment, the real pressure is on if that fantastic company, Hardy Aviation, has to withdraw its service.
Chief Minister, there are real issues now. You do not need a representative in an office on the main street of Tennant Creek to tell you about them. I am encouraging constituents to contact Steve Edgington to ensure we load his journal up with real issues for Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Chief Minister, we would like you to put your money where your mouth is. Visit us and deliver real results for the Barkly and Tennant Creek.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak about a fantastic event that occurred today, Ride2Work Day. I do not know if I will be riding home from work tonight, but Ride2Work Day is an annual Australia-wide event coordinated by the bicycle advocacy group, Bicycle Network.
The day aims to promote active, sustainable transport, and encourage new riders to take up the challenge. Staff from the Department of Transport, the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, the Department of Health and other NT government agencies rode to the community breakfast in Raintree Park on the way to work this morning, and supported the National Ride2Work Day.
Census data indicates more people per capita in the Northern Territory cycle to work than any other state or Territory. What a wonderful statistic.
Of course, we have some very good cycle paths in our major urban areas and, generally, a good climate. Cycling can be a great option for the journey to work, study or other short trip. I believe the cycle path goes all the way down to the member for Nelson’s electorate.
Mr Wood: We are trying to extend it but there is a budget problem.
Mr STYLES: When you talk about a budget problem, with a $5.5bn projected debt – sorry, member for Nelson, you probably should not have interjected.
Mr Wood: We are trying to do it ourselves. We will make it a community effort.
Mr STYLES: A community path, excellent. We will do what we can. We understand being active is good for people not only in urban areas, but people in the rural area as well. We will do whatever we can to promote people in rural areas riding to work, riding to their friend’s place, to the shops or wherever.
Ride2Work Day was a good time to highlight the importance of sharing the road. Many people do not realise cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other road users, and deserve the same respect and courtesy on our roads. Sadly, some people do not understand that. By the same token, cyclists must ensure they follow the road rules as if they were on a motorcycle or in a car. I see, from time to time, some cyclists riding through red lights because they think when they are on a bicycle they can do that. Alas, this morning, there was none of that. The Bicycle Network, a non-government organisation based in Victoria, started this some years ago and has been coordinating the National Ride2Work Day since 2007. The number of cyclists participating in Ride2Work Day continues to increase.
In the Northern Territory, cyclists have participated in the Ride2Work Day in increasing numbers in Darwin, Alice Springs, regional centres and the rural area. They sometimes struggle because they do not have as many bike paths as we do in Darwin - around East Point and the fantastic places we have, but no doubt when the government can, it will extend cycle paths in the rural area.
Major workplaces, such as Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin International Airport have participated in the Ride2Work Day in previous years. This year we had Charles Darwin University in Darwin, and the Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs, hold their Ride2Work Day followed by a community breakfast. We must thank the City of Darwin, because this year they again hosted a community breakfast to celebrate Ride2 Work Day in Raintree Park between 6.30 am and 9 am.
I want to mention some of the people who participated in this event, especially the Department of Transport staff, who did a fantastic job of coordinating a large group of people. I did not ride all the way from Sanderson - it was a bit far for me on my deadly treadly - but I joined them on the way into town. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who joined us and participated, some of whom ride into work on a regular basis. I acknowledge the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport, Clare Gardner-Barnes, myself, Jo Cruickshank, Senior Policy Advisor in Transport and Planning, Ben Mountcastle, Simon Gillam, Terri Layman, Sandy Beattie, Jenny Malone, Nicky Dare, Guy Riley and Rosalie Wiltshire.
Lycra abounded this morning; there was plenty of lycra and plenty of fluoro vests. Of course, everyone had a helmet on doing the right thing riding on footpaths and being cautious in relation to pedestrians. Everybody was responsible and dressed appropriately. It was a beautiful morning, albeit people say it is the buildup. A nice cool breeze was blowing, it was a little overcast which helped, and we finally reached the community breakfast at Raintree Park where we met Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim and a few other bike riders. It was great to see because we had probably the biggest contingent, but many groups of twos and threes came along.
The breakfast was sponsored by the City of Darwin. Beautiful smoothies were available but you had to make them yourself. Of course, there was no electricity, so how do you make a smoothie without electricity? They had a fantastic contraption which looked like a stationary exercise bike but on the front had part of a Sunbeam mixer. You bolt this onto the front, put a strap over it and then you peddle. You peddle faster and faster to make your smoothie.
It worked because I had a magnificent fruit smoothie with some healthy yoghurt in it and, after peddling to make my smoothie, was able to consume it and share some with the crowd.
It was a great bunch of people and terrific fun. I remind people that when you are out with a couple of friends on bikes, provided you are not on a racing bike trying to do 130 km down the open road, if you are cruising along on your mountain bike you can have a terrific amount of fun chatting. Of course you pay attention to what is happening around you, but it is possible to chat with your friends about a whole range of things you pass and see.
Madam Speaker, we were very grateful to the City of Darwin for hosting the breakfast. I am grateful to the people from the Department of Transport who came along. I am grateful to Gary Barnes, Chief Executive of the Chief Minister’s Department, for lending me his bike as mine was lent to a grandson and, sadly, is not in the best condition. I am grateful to all those people, and I hope this encourages people to enjoy some healthy exercise. I congratulate the Ride2Work Day people for their great work. The organisation, Bicycle Network, based in Victoria, did a great job starting it and is doing a great job promoting healthy exercise in the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the minister’s comments about bicycle riding. It is a good healthy lifestyle, and we have a great bicycle path. I prefer to call ours ‘the rail trail’. I subscribe to a magazine called Rails Trails Hopefully, one day we can have one of the greatest rail trails because we still have a corridor most of the way to Adelaide River, which would eventually connect up with the Adelaide River heritage site. Trevor Horman would like that to happen. It would be a mountain bike trail, of course. I do not think we could afford to bituminise the old trail to Adelaide River, but it is something to be aimed at anyway.
I will read into Hansard a letter I received dealing with the announcement of the NT Open Education Centre’s new facility and an interim move to Nightcliff Middle School. I received it from Vicki Proud, who is the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre School Council. I would like to read it because I also have some concerns about what is happening to this school. She wrote:
The NTOEC has been there for quite a long time. In 1986, it moved to its present location in Chrisp Street, so getting on to 27 years it has been there. It is a school, if people do not know, and I will read from the NTOEC website:
Some children may attend a secondary school which does not teach all subjects and they can use this important facility. Students may enrol as full-time or part-time students. They may be school aged students, or students beyond compulsory school age. NTOEC is one of the many secondary schools operated by the Department of Education. In some ways, it is different from other secondary schools but the main ingredients are the same: experienced professional teachers providing the best possible education for individual students.
You have a great school which has been operating since 1980. All of a sudden, you decide to shift it to another school after promising it would not be moved until a purpose-built facility was built. Why? The school council says Nightcliff Middle School is not suitable because of the way lessons are conducted at NTOEC. The question really is: why have you turned a promise around? You said you would not move them until a purpose-built facility was ready and now you are shoving them out to the side. It seems you want The Essington School Darwin to move to that site.
I would love to know what agreement was made with The Essington School Darwin before the election. Was there an agreement made to shift NTOEC from the building and Essington would take it over? I would also be interested in the financial implications of that agreement. NTOEC should not be disadvantaged. By moving them to Nightcliff Middle School they are. The minister should stop and ensure they are not shifted until a purpose-built facility is available. Thank you.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to talk about a couple of events in my electorate. I will start with the East Arnhem Under 15s Aussie Rules Carnival held in Nhulunbuy over the weekend of 12 and 13 October. The major sponsor was Miwatj, and the teams were competing for the Miwatj Cup. They were also incredibly well supported by AFLNT, as they do in our remote regions. There were four teams in the competition. A team arrived from Groote Eylandt, and a team from Gapuwiyak. The Groote Eylandt team had to fly in. Gapuwiyak is a two-and-a-half hour drive down the road, so that team drove up. Elcho Island, or the Galiwinku kids had to fly in, and the closest, the home team of Yirrkala, is just a 20-minute drive down the road.
The event had been planned for some time and I understand the driving force behind it was probably Mick Montague who runs the AFLNT Development Program at Gapuwiyak and does an incredible job. Mick successfully got the Gapuwiyak senior team into the GEFL competition this year so it was a natural progression to see the young under 15s team from Gapuwiyak participate in the carnival over the weekend. Well done to Mick Montague. Robbie Williams is the AFLNT Development Officer from Groote Eylandt who accompanied the team.
Tavis Perry was there. I missed Tavis on the Saturday, but I have known Tavis since he was AFLNT officer at Galiwinku. Tayo Caferalla is now the AFLNT Development Officer at Galiwinku. He brought a couple of charters across with the young fellows on board. Hamish Simpson has had a long involvement with AFLNT and for the last couple of years has been one of the directors of the Clontarf Academy at Yirrkala. He does an amazing job as AFLNT Development Officer, as well as instilling that love of Aussie Rules and sport.
Michael Horgan came from Gapuwiyak as did Ziggy. Forgive me, I do not have Ziggy’s last name, but he accompanied the Gapuwiyak team. Kevin Bird was there throughout the weekend. Kevin does an amazing job in his sport and recreation role with Miwatj Aboriginal Health Corporation.
Jen Ryan and Dave Brumby were there for most of the weekend. Jen and Dave are both homelands teachers. Over the weekend Jen picked up some of the homelands kids and drove them in in a Troopie. At the conclusion of the weekend Dave Brumby drove the kids back. They were hoping to field a homelands team but they did not have a sufficient number of children. That did not matter; the boys did not miss out on a game as they were slotted into other teams. Indeed, there was a bit of swapping of players between teams to ensure everybody had a go.
From what I saw there were some really close games with one and two points the difference, and a great sense of sportsmanship. Kids who were not playing at any given time would be running water bottles out. When the grand final was held on Sunday, the Yirrkala Dockers played the Galiwinku Giants. The Galiwinku Giants appeared favourites throughout the two day carnival, but they got pipped at the post in the grand final and it was disappointing for those young fellows. Part of being in sport and being a sportsman is learning to cope with the loss and accept you do not always win. Gee whiz, as runners up they did extremely well.
It was not just about playing football, for three of these teams it was a treat to come into the larger town of Nhulunbuy. They all camped at the Cat Shed which neighbours Hindle Oval. They enjoyed the opportunity to not only visit some of the shops in Nhulunbuy, but to go to the town pool for a swim. Kids at Elcho Island do not have a swimming pool, as much as I would love to see one there and have lobbied in the past. There was friendship and sharing amongst these kids. They were also teaching each other language from their community. All in all, it was a really successful and special event.
Our local newspaper, the Arafura Times ran a full page in today’s paper. Tavis Perry sent me a copy and I seek leave to table this clipping.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to quote a few things which give a background to this carnival, the first one acknowledging the carnival:
They were happy to be out there playing football, but it was also an opportunity to be on a pathway to further competition within the Territory.
Robbie Williams from Groote Eylandt summed up, from his perspective – he was interviewed in our local paper about what the boys were getting out of this competition and I read:
Well done to everybody involved with the carnival. I hope to see those young fellows move up through the ranks and into the senior teams in future years in the GAFL competition.
Mick Montague circulated an e-mail with a couple of photos and a quick message yesterday. I quite like his comments:
I thought that was pretty special and, obviously, some friendships were made.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to advise the House of a special and noteworthy event which occurred in Nhulunbuy when the townspeople rallied to support Relay For Life held in August. The people of Nhulunbuy are incredibly generous. There were 25 teams participating and all supported by family, friends, workmates and the wider community generally. The teams managed to raise, collectively, $75 000. That is a significant sum of money for a community the size of the Gove region. Every cent of this money will go towards cancer research.
Obviously, to raise a massive sum of money means a massive effort was required by all involved. It had to be spearheaded by a committee, and the driving force behind this event was, once again, Fiona Pearce, who has worked tirelessly to coordinate this event, not for the first time. I believe it was the third time Relay For Life had been held in Nhulunbuy. It tends to occur every second year. Of course, on the coordinating committee with Fiona was Wendy Troe, Jenny Priest, Sally Putland and Fiona Stimpson. They are a terrific bunch of women, hard workers, good sense of humour, and they spent months planning and organising. It was no small feat. These women all have full-time jobs and families, and are involved in a number of other committees within our local community. Hats off to them!
The relay commenced at 2 pm on Saturday afternoon, 17 August, and the first lap was completed by cancer survivors and carers. Teams continued the relay throughout the night until the closing ceremony at 8 am the next day. There was a phenomenal turnout of walkers and campers, many decorated in theme, along with some catering stalls which presented fundraising opportunities. There was plenty of great music to walk to throughout the event, thanks to Gove FM, as well as a couple of very talented bands from amongst Nhulunbuy’s young people who played to entertain the crowd.
For people who have never been to an event, the formal ceremonies of candle lighting at the table for one, and the lighting of lanterns around the track dedicated to loved ones lost to cancer, is very moving and very teary to witness. During the ceremonies beautiful live music was provided by Tim Webb and Alicia Scobie. Also, Mark Keogh played songs, having lost his dad to cancer in April this year. Rachel Blundell gave a very stirring rendition of Wind Beneath My Wings.
So, too, was the very poignant speech from Wendy Troe, who had the honour to pay tribute to all the people our community has lost to cancer over the years. It was quite a feat to get that list of people who had been part of our community together. There was barely a dry eye at the conclusion of Wendy’s speech and the ceremonies which followed.
The event cannot happen without the incredible support of some very special people and organisations. Thank you to Rotary, which provided a cooked breakfast on the morning, following a long night of walking, and the surf club and its army of volunteers who ran the bar and drinks stall. Gove FM I mentioned, and their volunteers included Michael Stimpson and Rod Stewart. I am most apologetic if I have left someone off the list from Gove FM. I also acknowledge the role the NT Cancer Council plays.
Madam Speaker, there are many things I love about the place that is Nhulunbuy and my home for 23 years. This event, Relay For Life, is a reminder of why. I know I am not alone in that sentiment.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of the senior students from Kormilda College, accompanied by Ailsa MacFie. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you here today and hope you enjoy your tour and visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
ALCOHOL PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
(Serial 58)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 is another step in the government’s continuing commitment to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. Alcohol is a major factor in many cases of criminal behaviour in the Territory, and this bill will add a strong new measure by providing police with the necessary powers to address criminal behaviour involving alcohol and deter family violence incidents involving offenders affected by alcohol.
The bill represents another tool in the fight against alcohol-related crime and violence. It also complements other pioneering changes the Northern Territory government has introduced in tackling alcohol abuse and crime, such as the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Act and the Sentencing Amendment (Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Act. While some tools exist for the police to tackle alcohol-related crime, they are mostly focused on antisocial behaviour and public order offending.
This bill proposes new powers which provide police with a law enforcement tool to monitor offenders associated with alcohol-related crime and provides for offences to deter future offending on an individual level. Approximately 60% of Northern Territory Police Force responses to offences against the person are alcohol-related or domestic violence related. Approximately 70% of domestic violence order breaches responded to are alcohol-related.
The bill provides for a series of alcohol protection orders issued to an adult charged with an alcohol-related offence. The bill will operate through voluntary and non-voluntary orders issued by a police officer of the rank of sergeant or above to an adult. The orders can last for three, six or 12 months and will prohibit that adult from consuming or possessing alcohol or entering licensed premises except for employment.
A breach of these conditions or failure to comply with a valid direction given by a police officer will be an offence. A person guilty of breaching an offence may be subject to penalties and, for those under a non-voluntary alcohol protection order, the penalty may be imprisonment.
If an authorised officer wants to issue an alcohol protection order, they must be satisfied the person is over 18 years of age and has been arrested, summonsed or served with a notice to appear in court for an offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of six month or more, and the person was affected by alcohol when they committed the alleged offence.
What is necessary is the adult has allegedly committed a relatively serious offence and alcohol was also involved. If those charges are subsequently withdrawn or dismissed, the person is found not guilty or not liable to be punished for any other reason and then the alcohol protection order will cease to be in force from that time.
The time limits for an alcohol protection order issued by an authorised officer are prescribed by the bill. In summary, there will be the ability to issue a three-, six-, or 12-month order, depending on the number of orders previously issued to the person and the amount of time that has passed between the issuing of orders to that adult.
A person may also choose to voluntarily apply for an order. In order to do so, the person must be capable of making the application and consenting to the terms, and they must be able to understand the consequences and penalties that apply to a breach of the order. The person applying for an order to be issued can request the order be in place for three, six or 12 months, and the officer may take this into account. If a person wants to remove this type of order they can do so in writing or in person at a police station, and it will be removed as soon as practicable.
The deterrent effect of the bill comes into effect through the powers it gives police to monitor and enforce the orders, and the ability to charge adults who contravene the order with an offence. A contravention means a person is consuming, possessing, or attempting to possess alcohol, entering or being on licensed premises, or intentionally contravening a direction given to the person by a police officer to submit to a breath test analysis.
The bill will give police powers to perform a breath test or a breath analysis on people who have been issued with an order and are believed to have consumed alcohol. Someone who has been issued an order and fails to follow a direction to submit to a breath test will contravene the order and be liable to criminal punishment.
The bill also gives police powers to search the adult and seize and dispose of any alcohol in their possession. Possession is defined in the bill using the definition found within the Criminal Code Act. This definition will capture those circumstances where alcohol may be in the actual physical possession of another person, but is being held for the person subject to the alcohol protection order. This ensures those people subject to an alcohol protection order cannot ask another person to hold alcohol on their behalf to avoid the consequences of breaching the order. The police must have a reasonable belief the person not subject to an alcohol protection order was holding the alcohol for the person subject to an order before they can either seize the alcohol or be satisfied the order has been contravened.
It is proposed that for someone who intentionally breaches an alcohol protection order which was issued on a non-voluntary basis, the punishment is a maximum of 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. The same maximum penalties exist for an adult who intentionally engages in conduct that results in a contravention of a direction under clause 18(1) which relates to breath testing and breath analysis. If the adult establishes a reasonable excuse as to why the breach occurred, they will have a defence against a prosecution for a contravention of an order or a direction.
It is proposed that for someone who intentionally breaches a voluntary order, the maximum penalty is five penalty units.
The bill also makes it an offence to supply alcohol to an adult where the person supplying it knows the adult has been issued with an alcohol protection order which is currently in force. The proposed maximum penalty for this offence is 25 penalty units or three months imprisonment. This will again provide a strong deterrent against people supplying alcohol to those who abuse it. It will also make it more difficult to obtain alcohol for people issued with an order.
A person on bail may be subject to similar conditions in an alcohol protection order. However, an order will be able to be issued once a person is charged and the conditions and powers of police provided for under the proposed bill can be enforced from that point.
Because of the strong stance the bill takes aim against people abusing alcohol and then committing criminal behaviour, it also provides clear and accessible avenues of review regarding the issuing of an order. There are two stages to the process. First, an internal reconsideration by a senior police officer and, if the order is confirmed, a merits review of the senior officer’s decision in the local court. The order will remain in force throughout both review processes.
The time limit for applying to the court is 14 days from the senior officer’s notice. The court must review the merits of the decision. To make this decision the court may admit evidence not previously considered or refuse to admit evidence previously considered before confirming or setting aside the order. If the order is confirmed, it remains in force on the same terms, and if it is set aside it immediately ceases to have force.
The reconsideration and review process provides a safeguard against any incorrect order or orders being issued in the wrong circumstances. These processes help balance the powers of the bill and ensure an individual’s rights are protected. It also provides a clear and fair procedure by which people can request an order to be reconsidered.
The bill establishes information sharing arrangements for information which relates to an alcohol protection order currently in force. This will allow the Northern Territory Police Force, Territory government departments, and treatment organisations to communicate and administer the alcohol protection order efficiently. In particular, it will allow police to provide sufficient identifying information to licensed premises to assist them in identifying people subject to an alcohol protection order. This will, in turn, assist in cutting off the supply of alcohol to people who are subject to an alcohol protection order.
This bill will allow sharing authorities to provide better services to the individual, as well as efficiently enforce orders. There are safeguards in the bill to ensure the person’s information is adequately protected. This comes from limiting the circumstances in which disclosure is permitted. Information cannot be disclosed for a purpose other than the one it was provided for.
The miscellaneous provisions of the bill help to clarify certain issues that might arise in administering the bill. These include averments by a prosecutor in the proceedings for an offence under the bill in relation to licensed premises, whether a liquid is alcohol, and the date on which a particular order was issued.
Clause 26 of the bill concerns the acquisition of property on ‘just terms’ and mirrors section 42A of the Misuse of Drugs Act and section 128A of the Liquor Act. There are numerous High Court authorities regarding the application of this type of clause. Forfeiture of property due to illegal activity is an exception to the acquisition of property on just terms principle. This bill falls within the forfeiture exemption for acquisition of property on just terms; nevertheless, the provision has been included to ensure any potential invalidity, however unlikely, is addressed.
It is clear more action must be taken in the Territory to ensure we reduce crime and address the factors which lead to criminal and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol is clearly one of these factors. Gaps that exist in other schemes which are already operating have been specifically targeted by this bill through a concerted focus on the mix of criminal behaviour and alcohol on an individual level.
This bill will complement existing schemes such as the mandatory treatment scheme, and powers which already exist under the Police Administration Act and the Liquor Act. The Alcohol Protection Orders Bill 2013 represents the next step in a progressive and planned government intervention on alcohol abuse and serious criminal offending.
I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a mighty fine group of Year 7 children from Taminmin College, accompanied by Nelly Labiche, Penny Kellaway and Rhiannon Smith. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and I hope you enjoy your time and your visit here.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETROLEUM AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 56)
(Serial 56)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Petroleum Amendment Bill is straightforward. In essence, the bill seeks to amendment the current Petroleum Act to provide for a more strategic and controlled release of vacant land and allow for the acceptance of multiple applications for exploration permits over that vacant land.
In summary, the bill amends the current act by creation of a new provision, ‘Advertisement of blocks for land release’, which will allow the advertisement of vacant land not under a petroleum permit application or permit to be available for application and the time period in which applications must be lodged for that land. Therefore, amendments will also allow for the receipt of more than one permit application over the advertised land.
As with most amending bills, other amendments were made by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to give effect to the above matters. If adopted, this bill will facilitate a more strategic and controlled release of vacant land, allow for the acceptance of multiple applications over vacant land, provide a more competitive market in applying for that vacant land, and allow government to select the most meritorious applications for consideration of grant.
Further, the bill will bring the Northern Territory closer in line with Commonwealth and neighbouring jurisdictions’ legislative processes to assist international and Australian industry operators in reducing regulatory red tape with their cross-jurisdictional activities.
It is important to point out there has been no significant amendment to the Territory’s petroleum legislation since 1982 that has the potential to attract greater exploration expertise and interest in the Territory than these amendments. With the oil and gas exploration industry on the cusp of major gas discoveries in the Northern Territory, it is now timely and appropriate for the Territory to remain competitive and contemporary in the administration of vacant land and grant of exploration tenure.
Prior to finalisation of this bill, the Department of Mines and Energy discussed proposed amendments with industry representatives and industry associations with the overall response being positive, which justifies the amendments and the timing of the amendments.
I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT (LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 51)
(Serial 51)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Since being elected in August 2012, the Northern Territory government has endeavoured to make the Territory’s child protection system more child focused. It is appropriate that the Legislative Assembly is able to consider this bill so close to Children’s Week, a national initiative intended to focus the attention of decision makers on children and young people. This bill shares the goals of that week.
The amendment bill provides two key reforms. I will turn first to that of the child’s independent legal representative.
The provision of an independent legal representative to the child is a realisation of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:
- 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
When a magistrate sitting in the Family Matters Court considers an application for a protection order the court is, in all likelihood, making one of the biggest decisions that will ever impact on the child. In many cases, that decision will change the course of that child’s life irrevocably. That decision should permanently and irrevocably alter the child’s relationships, family connections and even the child’s own sense of identity and self. The importance of that decision to the child cannot be overstated.
For that reason it is fundamental and an expectation of the community that, wherever possible, the child’s voice is heard through the provision of an independent legal representative who then, appropriately and professionally, advocates on behalf of the child. The role of the child legal representative as articulated in the Care and Protection of Children Act has been the cause of much uncertainty. It is interesting that despite sharing the same legislation, the understanding of the role has differed greatly in Alice Springs and Darwin. This confusion was highlighted in the 2010 board of inquiry, Growing them strong, together report, although the report made no recommendation on the matter. It was also the burning issue for many legal stakeholders during the review of the act undertaken by the Department of Children and Families in 2012.
The need to clarify the role was further highlighted by two Supreme Court decisions in late 2012, one of which is an appeal that was allowed on the grounds the magistrate had failed to take into account the most relevant of considerations, the views of the child, because the child’s legal representative had failed to ascertain and properly communicate those views.
Currently, a child is appointed a legal representative. That representative advocates according to what is known as the best interests model regardless of any instructions from the child. Effectively, they are a friend of the court appointed to advocate on the basis of what the representative considers to be the child’s best interests as well as presenting the child’s view and wishes. There is no solicitor client relationship with the child. The child could not dismiss their representative if they felt they were not being represented properly.
If a child, even a young person aged 16 or 17, wanted to oppose an application for a protection order the representative would only have to inform the court the child does not want the order to be made and could then argue the proposed order is, nevertheless, in the child’s best interests.
As Justice Kelly stated in one of the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions in which the child’s representative had failed to relay the child’s views and wishes:
- It is the magistrate’s function to consider the evidence, listen to the submissions of the parties and make a decision about what is in the best interest of the children ... if that is all that is being done by the children’s representative, then it adds no additional value to the proceeding.
The child’s best interests are also the primary concern for the person making the application for the order, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Children and Families. This amendment clarifies the role and the circumstances in which a representative should be appointed, namely only when a child has a level of maturity or understanding such that their views and wishes can appropriately be conveyed to a court for consideration. As Justice Kelly noted:
- It seems to me that it would be in very rare circumstances indeed that it would be appropriate to order that an infant of less than two years old be separately represented … a very young infant has no capacity to give instructions and likely no views and wishes that can be sensibly conveyed to the court.
The child’s representative will cease representation of the child once the appeal period passes and an order is made. The child legal representative’s role is entirely tied up with representing the child in court. It is not the legal representative’s job to advocate on the child’s behalf should they enter care, nor is it their role to monitor the Department of Children and Families.
If another protection order is proposed for the child in the future, or an application is made to vary or revoke the existing order, that would be a separate proceeding and the court would again be required to consider whether a child representative should be appointed for the new matter. It may or may not be the same practitioner who previously represented the child.
This amendment also changes the model to one of direct representation for children who have maturity and understanding to provide instruction to their lawyer. A legal representative of a child who has maturity and understanding to provide instructions must act on those instructions. Children aged 10 and over will be presumed to be capable of providing instructions, although that presumption can be rebutted. This has been the generally preferred model of Australian child protection jurisdictions since the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Seen and heard: priority for children in the legal process report was published in 1997. That report stated quote:
- … being heard, even though an official or professional considers that one is wrong, is a necessary aspect of justice; a right to a hearing in a decision-making process may of itself fulfil a psychological need, regardless of the practical conclusion reached … there is evidence that the increased sense of control by effective participation in these processes is strongly related to the health, both psychological and physical, of the child.
Further to the child legal representative reforms, the bill adds a new power to investigate allegations of abuse in care. Although it is already within the power of the Department of Children and Families to make inquiries in relation to children in care, just as it is for any other child, an allegation of abuse in care is, in fact, a very different set of circumstances and warrants a separate provision.
In a typical child protection investigation, the Department of Children and Families will investigate the alleged failure of a parent to act protectively for a child with a view to determining whether the Department of Children and Families should intervene. When the Department of Children and Families investigates an allegation of abuse in care, it is investigating its own alleged failure to act protectively for a child, with a view to determining whether any changes need to be made in relation to the child’s care.
It is, therefore, appropriate this function be found in a separate part of the act to the standard investigation function. This will also allow the power to be delegated to a limited number of caseworkers so the investigation can occur independently of the office responsible for the case. It will also have an added requirement that any substantiation of harm of a child in care must be reported to the Children’s Commissioner as soon as practicable.
The bill makes further amendments of a mostly administrative nature. Most significantly, it clarifies the provision which allows authorised officers to search children for weapons or harmful substances when an officer reasonably believes doing so is necessary to prevent the child from being harmed or harming others.
The previous provision was unnecessarily convoluted and awkward to operationalise to the detriment of children at risk of harm. The requirement that the officer conducting the search be the same gender as the child will remain.
In light of the 2012 Youth Justice Court decision in Mosel v DT, the bill also amends the power of authorised officers to enter a place with a view to apprehending a child so it is clear the power can be exercised in a public place, and an officer need not first enter a place before that power can be exercised.
As members of the House well know, the Northern Territory and, indeed, Australia has many adults who purport to speak for the Territory’s children and young people, and who advocate according to what they perceive to be the best interests of children. The government shares that desire to improve the wellbeing of the Territory’s children and young people. However, too often the voices of the individual children are lost amongst the much louder voices of the adults. The reform in this bill will further empower children so their voices are better heard and are responded to in both a court setting and out-of-home care.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory notes.
Debate adjourned.
CHILDREN’S COMMISSIONER BILL
(Serial 52)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to the goal of a truly transparent child protection system that is accountable and subject to ongoing review and scrutiny. Honourable members would recall this sentiment consistently expressed to this parliament by government members. It is with this commitment in mind that, having completed a review of the Care and Protection of Children Act, one of the first legislative acts of the Country Liberals government with respect to child protection is one which permanently embeds improved oversight and increased accountability through the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
This bill is the product of a collaborative process undertaken by staff from the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Attorney-General and Justice, and the Children’s Commissioner. This bill will separate the Children’s Commissioner from the Care and Protection of Children Act and establish a stand-alone Children’s Commissioner’s Act. This will better reflect the independence of the office and the fact the Children’s Commissioner has investigation powers for systems other than that of child protection.
Whereas previously the Children’s Commissioner would share the principles of the child protection system in the Care and Protection of Children Act, transferring the Children’s Commissioner to a stand-alone act creates an opportunity for the construction of specific underlying principles more suited to the Children’s Commissioner’s role. The principles have been arrived at in close collaboration with the Children’s Commissioner.
Before I detail the principles to the House in full, I note that consistent with the oath of office the Children’s Commissioner must take, the principles do not alter the Children’s Commissioner’s obligation to discharge his or her powers and functions impartially.
Consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of children should be the paramount concern for any person exercising a power or performing a function under the Children’s Commissioner Act. Further, children in the Northern Territory are entitled to:
live in a caring and a nurturing environment in which they are protected from harm and exploitation and able to reach their full potential
be treated in a way that respects their dignity and privacy
express their concerns and grievances and to have them dealt with in a fair and timely way.
Finally, and consistent with this government’s priority and other related amendments intended to better focus the child protection system back onto the children and young people, the views of children and all matters affecting them should be given serious consideration and taken into account.
It is essential the business of child protection and the provision of child-related services be informed by best practice and guided by intellectual honesty, not political ideology. It is therefore appropriate that the following has been included as an explicit function of the Children’s Commissioner’s new act, and I quote:
- … to promote an understanding of, and inform public discussion about, the rights, interests and wellbeing of vulnerable children.
As I mentioned earlier, the Care and Protection of Children Act provides the legislative framework of the child protection system.
This bill will give the Children’s Commissioner a new task of evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of that act as far as it relates to vulnerable children. This will ensure the act is providing value for money in the provision of public service and being responsive to the children and families the Department of Children and Families exists to serve. Reviews of the act must occur at least every three years and each will result in a report that must be tabled in parliament.
The Children’s Commissioner already has the power to conduct investigations, both upon receiving a complaint from a child or a person speaking for the child, or on the Children’s Commissioner’s own motion. This bill amends that power so the Children’s Commissioner may informally resolve complaints when it is appropriate to do so. This will allow for an expeditious resolution of complaints, which is particularly appropriate given that many complainants are children. It will also result in efficiencies for the Children’s Commissioner and the child-related services being investigated, as they will not need to proceed to a comprehensive investigation unless the circumstances warrant it.
While the investigation function is concerned with the experience of individual children, the new inquiry function will assist in identifying persistent or recurring systemic issues.
It will be a requirement that the reports of any such inquiry be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. However, the Children’s Commissioner will be able to waive that requirement if he or she considers it to be in the public interest. In order to maintain the privacy of individuals concerned, the Children’s Commissioner will also be able to direct that parts of the report be de-identified. These reports will assist to improve services and to promote a culture of continuous reflection, innovation and improvement in the Department of Children and Families and other service providers involved in the care and protection of children.
This bill will ensure the Northern Territory’s child protection system is more accountable than it has ever been. The Children’s Commissioner’s act provides accountability and oversight at every conceivable level for the individual through investigations, the systemic via enquiries and the broader discussion of ideas through the explicit informed public discussion function.
Finally, I extend my thanks for the outstanding efforts of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Legal Policy Division of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for their collaborative work with the Office of Children and Families in the preparation of this bill.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 55)
(Serial 55)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In early 2013, the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, together with the Northern Territory Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Health, raised four issues relating to the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act. These matters were the subject of comment and rulings in both the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, and were also highlighted by law enforcement officers, legal practitioners, and other professionals who work under this legislation. The issues related to:
1. the wording of the offence of supplying a Schedule 2 dangerous drug to a person in an Indigenous community, at section 5(2)(a(iv) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
2. the need for supplying a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community to be specified as an aggravated circumstance in the penalty guidelines in section 37(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
3. inconsistencies and duplication in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, including reference to positional forms of drugs, reference to hallucinogenic properties of drugs and duplicated references, and
4. a deficiency in the wording and operation of the regulation making power under the act.
Madam Speaker, section 5(2)(a)(iv) was inserted by the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2008. This act amended the supply of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug offence to include an additional circumstance, namely supply of a Schedule 2 dangerous drug to a person in an Indigenous community. The amendment prescribed a maximum of nine years’ imprisonment where this additional circumstance was proven. In cases where the additional circumstance is not proven, a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment applies.
The former Attorney-General, Dr Chris Burns, in this second reading speech to introduce the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2008 stated that the purpose of the amendment was to:
- … to increase the maximum penalty for supplying Schedule 2 dangerous drugs in Indigenous communities.
He went on to further state:
- On 10 March 2008, the Chief Minister announced that the government would be increasing the penalty for supplying drugs in all Indigenous communities. This bill represents a commitment that government is serious about tackling the devastating impact that alcohol and dangerous drugs is having on families in Indigenous communities.
However, the wording inserted by the amendment act does not achieve the aims or purposes stated in the second reading speech.
In Nunggarrgalu v Millar, an unreported decision of the Northern Territory Supreme Court on 11 January 2013, the court ruled that the wording of the provision, ‘supply to a person in an Indigenous community’, requires actual supply to a person to be proven.
The court agreed with the observations of her Honour Justice Blokland in Williams v Balchin [2012] NTSC 15 at 10 that:
- Although the definition of ‘supply’ in the Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) includes all acts preparatory to actual supply, such as here where the drugs were transported or otherwise prepared with the purpose of supply, the circumstance of aggravation is not expressed to be generally ‘in an Indigenous community’ but rather ‘to a person in an Indigenous community’.
Currently, investigators must allow dangerous drugs to be supplied ‘to a person in an Indigenous community’ before they can arrest an offender and charge him or her on the basis of the additional circumstance, and hence the higher maximum penalty, is applicable. This is the case even where an offender is arrested at an airport or in a bus outside an Indigenous community and there is clear evidence of an intention to supply in the Indigenous community. This fact is clearly at odds with the intention of the amendment act as outlined in the second reading speech in 2008, and unduly restricts the definition of supply as it applies to this offence.
Clause 4 of the bill amends section 5(2)(a)(iv) by omitting the words ‘to a person’. This means the nine-year imprisonment maximum penalty will be applicable where offenders are apprehended outside an Indigenous community, but evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt they were preparing to supply the drug in the Indigenous community. Clause 4 also amends section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow a statement to be used as evidence of the fact the offence occurred in, or was to occur, in an Indigenous community. Currently, the section only allows for the statement to be used when the supply is alleged to have occurred in an Indigenous community.
The second issue addressed in the bill relates to an ambiguity in the penalty guidelines of the act as they apply to section 5(2)(a)(iv) offence. ‘Supply of a dangerous drug in Indigenous community’ is not prescribed as a circumstance of aggravation in section 37(1), and this fact has drawn into question whether the mandatory imprisonment provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act apply when sentencing for this offence is finalised in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
By way of explanation, section 22 of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that when a person is charged with an offence under section 5 and is liable, on being found guilty, to a maximum penalty of 14 years or less, the matter may be heard summarily. If the matter is heard summarily the applicable maximum penalty available to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is two years’ imprisonment.
Section 37(2) states that when sentencing a person for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the court must impose a sentence requiring the offender to serve actual imprisonment, unless, having regard to the offender’s particular circumstances or the circumstances of the offence, actual imprisonment should not be imposed. This section applies to an offence that has a maximum penalty of seven years or more pursuant to section 37(2)(a), or where the maximum penalty is less than seven years but the offence is accompanied by an aggravating circumstance prescribed in section 37(1) - section 37(2)(b) refers.
As the Misuse of Drugs Act does not prescribe ‘supply of a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community’ as a circumstance of aggravation for the purposes of sentencing in section 37(1), the Court of Summary Jurisdiction is not required to impose actual imprisonment for the offence of supplying a dangerous drug in an Indigenous community as the maximum penalty applicable for the offence in that court, after a finding of guilt, is two years’ imprisonment. The issue was litigated in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction on 8 June 2012 and the oversight was highlighted by the sitting magistrate.
Drug suppliers and manufacturers are targeting Indigenous communities due to the increased profits that can be made from supplying drugs in these communities. It is essential the sentencing guidelines for this offence are clear, unambiguous, and consistently applied by all courts in the Northern Territory.
Clause 5 of this bill amends section 37(1) of the act by inserting the wording ‘an offence against section 5 that was committed in an Indigenous community’. This means the mandatory actual imprisonment provisions of section 37(2) will apply when the additional circumstance is proven.
The third matter relates to inconsistencies and duplication in the drug compounds prescribed in Schedule 2. These matters were identified during the investigation and prosecution of drug matters and have been highlighted by the Northern Territory Police, Director of Public Prosecutions, the judiciary, and legal practitioners. Given the number of amendments required, clause 9 omits the current Schedule 2 and replaces it with an updated clear and consistent Schedule 2.
It is important to note that no current dangerous drugs have been legalised as a result of these amendments, and in all cases where a positional form of a compound has been removed the base compound, if it is not already specified, has been included in the schedule.
The amendments fall into three areas; namely,
1. to remove the unnecessary duplication of dangerous drug references in Schedule 2. There are numerous examples where the same dangerous drugs have different names attributed to them in Schedule 2. This duplication has resulted in uncertainty and lack of clarity. For example, dexamphetamine, levomphetamine and amphetamine …
____________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can I ask you to pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from Taminmin College accompanied by Vicki Kane, Tracey Wing and Kara Kelly. On behalf of honourable members, welcome, Taminmin, and I hope you enjoy your visit to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________________
Mr ELFERINK: Welcome to Parliament House. I wish I could make this more exciting for you guys. However, where was I? Here we are.
… are all listed in Schedule 2. They are the same drug compound. This base compound amphetamine has remained in Schedule 2 and the two duplicate references have been removed.
2. to remove unnecessary references to positional forms of drugs in Schedule 2. Positional references to drugs are used to identify chemical variations of certain base drug compounds. It is unnecessary for the positional forms of the drugs to be listed in schedules due to the operation of the analogue provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
- Analogue drugs are substances that are structural modifications of, chemical derivatives of, or substances with a substantially similar chemical structure to other substances prescribed in the schedule. The act is clear on the point that a reference to a dangerous drug includes reference to any analogues of it. Therefore, reference to positional forms is superfluous and, potentially, creates confusion over the identification of substances.
In all cases where a positional form has been removed, the base compound, if not already listed, has been listed. In cases where the positional form has been removed and the base compound included, the quantities prescribed for the positional form have been prescribed for the base compound. For example, the references to the positional forms 3-Methylfentanyl and a-Methylfentanyl have been replaced with Methylfentanyl, the base compound for both entries. The positional form quantities have been prescribed for the new entry, and
3. to remove unnecessary reference to ‘hallucinogenic’ properties or effects of substances. A number of references to dangerous drugs in Schedule 2 are qualified by having an ‘hallucinogenic’ element, which requires the prosecution to prove that the drug has hallucinogenic effects or properties. Two issues have arisen. First, a number of references in Schedule 2 have a drug compound listed and then a secondary reference where ‘hallucinogenic properties or effects’ need to be proven. This second reference is superfluous and the bill omits them.
- Second, expert witnesses cannot give thorough and definitive evidence about hallucinogenic effects, as this type of evidence is subjective as certain drugs affect people in different ways. A number of drug advisory committees have recommended that the ‘hallucinogenic properties or effect’ references in state and territory drug legislation be removed. This bill omits these references, for example, the reference to ‘N,N-Dimethyltryptamine and its derivatives having hallucinogenic properties’ has been removed as N,N-Dimethyltryptamine is already listed in the schedule.
Clause 6 of the bill amends the regulation making power in section 43 of the act by inserting a new subsection which allows for regulations to be made to move a dangerous drug reference, and the applicable trafficable and commercial quantities, from Schedule 2 to Schedule 1 by regulation. This will have the effect of enabling the maximum penalties for offences involving prescribed dangerous drugs to be increased by regulation.
Currently, the regulation making power only allows drug references to be added to schedules by regulation and does not allow a reference to be omitted from Schedule 2 to enable it to be prescribed in Schedule 1.
This bill does not allow dangerous drugs to be omitted entirely from the schedules by regulation, as omissions of drugs may have the effect of decriminalising their use, supply or manufacture and this should be scrutinised by parliament. This bill does not allow for dangerous drugs to be moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 by regulation, as such an amendment would substantially lower the maximum penalties available and this should also be scrutinised by parliament.
Finally, clause 7 of the bill inserts a specific transitional provision for this bill. This transitional provision is identical to the transitional provision contained in the Misuse of Drugs Amendment (Methamphetamine) Bill 2013, and is necessary to preserve the current provisions of the act for all offences committed prior to the commencement of this bill.
The transitional provision also clarifies that ‘committed after commencement’ means all conduct constituting the offence must occur after commencement. The clarification is necessary as a criminal charge may allege a course of conduct that occurred both before and after commencement of this bill.
Drug suppliers are targeting Indigenous communities due to the profits that can be made and it is imperative these offenders face the full force of the law when they are found guilty, by any court, of such offending.
Furthermore, this government is committed to ensuring the aims and purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act are fully realised and that legislation is clear and workable for law enforcement, practitioners and the judiciary.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PETITION
Gas to Gove
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 994 petitioners praying that there is certainty to the supply of gas to Gove alumina refinery. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, we the undersigned respectively showeth that the families and businesses of Gove (Nhulunbuy) require certainty with regard to the supply of gas to Gove Alumina Refinery.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government acts quickly to supply Pacific Aluminium’s Gove Alumina Refinery with sufficient gas in order to keep it operational, ensuring the long-term future of the Gove region.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION) BILL
(Serial 37)
(Serial 37)
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and advise that the opposition will support it.
The practice of female genital mutilation, FGM, is an abhorrent cultural practice which emanates predominantly from Africa and has no place in our country or the Northern Territory, and nor should it in any modern society.
I understand the bill provides for an amendment expanding the Criminal Code Act to adult women rather than just applying to children for the offence of taking a person from the Northern Territory, or making arrangements to take someone from the Northern Territory for the purpose of performing genital mutilation.
It is not intended that the victim be prosecuted under this bill, but consent is no defence to charges brought under this section.
Currently, only children are covered by section 186C of the Criminal Code Act which makes it an offence to remove a child from the Northern Territory with the intention of performing genital mutilation, or to arrange for the same.
This bill extends to protect adult women. All states and territories have provisions criminalising the performance of female genital mutilation. The Standing Council on Law and Justice identified the only area the Northern Territory is deficient in is in relation to adult women, and this bill will address that.
This bill comes, thankfully, not from a rise in incidents of this practice of women being removed from the Territory for the purpose of FGM, but as part of a review of Australia’s FGM legal framework led by the Australian government. It actually dates as far back as a report from the Family Law Council in 1995; however, the more recent review was announced by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 11 December 2012, and was coordinated by then Health minister, Tanya Plibersek. The final report, dated March 2013, was noted at the Standing Council on Law and Justice held in Darwin on 4 April this year.
Female genital mutilation is mentioned in the communique from that day in the summary of decisions:
- Ministers noted the report on Australia’s female genital mutilation legal framework and agreed to a number of recommendations aimed at ensuring Australian women and girls are protected to the greatest extent possible from this practice.
This bill does that.
I have read the 20-page report, which is the federal government’s review of Australia’s FGM legal framework, and find some elements noteworthy. The executive summary in 1.2 around coverage of existing offences notes the need for jurisdictions to strengthen the legal framework as it relates to consistency of penalty and consistency of age coverage. The latter is achieved through this bill. The report discusses consistent penalties noting that:
- … offences vary greatly, ranging from 7 years’ imprisonment in some jurisdictions up to 21 years’ imprisonment in others.
Improving the consistency of penalties between jurisdictions would have a number of benefits.
It further highlights:
- The Northern Territory and Queensland have noted that the maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment for the offence of performing female genital mutilation in their jurisdictions was set for consistency with other violent offences against the person contained within their broader legislative regime. Similarly, Queensland and the Northern Territory have set a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment for the offence of removing a person from their jurisdictions with the intention of subjecting them to female genital mutilation, to reflect the gravity of this type of conduct and for consistency with the penalty that would apply to a person who had actually performed the female genital mutilation procedure, respectively.
However, we know legislation alone, despite harsh penalties, will not deter the abhorrent practice of FGM. On the subject of enforcement issues the report states on page 4:
- Despite being extensively criminalised for a number of years, feedback from jurisdictions indicates that very few, if any, female genital mutilation offences have been successfully prosecuted in Australian courts. This Report identifies a number of opportunities to improve the detection and enforcement of existing laws. These opportunities could be progressed by cooperative inter-jurisdiction and inter-agency efforts. These include:
improved information sharing between the health and legal systems
establishing liaisons with community groups in populations which could be vulnerable to female genital mutilation
Many of these initiatives could be progressed through the broader efforts to combat female genital mutilation being led by the Commonwealth Minister for Health.
I trust, despite the fact we have had a change of government since this paper was issued, the matters highlighted and the six recommendations in this report would continue to be embraced by the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth will continue to work with each of the jurisdictions in the nation to ensure this abhorrent cultural practice does not raise its head in Australia.
It was an obvious question to ask at the briefing I attended recently: has anyone in the Territory been charged under section 186B or 186C? The answer was, essentially, no, insofar as statistics go back 12 years and show no one has been charged with these offences. That, in itself, is a good thing.
In researching for this debate and this important legislation - my thanks to Kaye Henderson from the Parliamentary Library Service for her role in helping me find information not only for this bill, but other bills I have spoken to.
A similar debate was raised in the Western Australia parliament in 2002. It was a matter of grievance raised by the member for Girrawheen to the then Attorney-General that although most jurisdictions brought into their criminal code female genital mutilation as an offence in around 1996, there was a loophole in Western Australia legislation. I will quote what the member for Girrawheen, Ms M Quirk, had to say:
- There is little hard evidence in this State that such operations are currently being performed here. However, as with many other cultural practices, it can be anticipated that once young girls come of age, their mothers who were subjected to the practice before arriving in Australia may seek to have the operation performed on their daughters. We also know of a specific instance in which, although medical authorities alerted police to a victim of FGM, in the absence of a specific complaint or a witness statement on the identity of the person who committed the physical damage, no criminal prosecution could be launched. However, we know that the effects of the operation can include haemorrhage, shock, painful scars, keloid formation, labial adherence, clitoral cysts, chronic urinary infection and chronic pelvic infections. Later in life it can cause kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression and various gynaecological and obstetric problems. Our society cannot countenance young girls having to bear this legacy.
Well said by that WA member of parliament in summing up the practice and how it is we have women coming to this country from overseas who have been through the practice of FGM and will, therefore, seek for their daughters to be part of it.
This legislation we are passing today helps to close the gap on the practice detailed in that contribution in the WA parliament about the awful physical and, no doubt, emotional scars that must go with that practice being performed on women.
The report from the Australian government also raises that grey area of how existing FGM laws might apply to female genital cosmetic or therapeutic procedures. The report notes on page 3:
- … queries were raised about how existing female genital mutilation laws would apply to female genital cosmetic procedures. Such procedures are alleged to be occurring more frequently since the last time model laws were discussed by the jurisdictions. This is a complex issue, which this Report has been unable to fully consider. However, this Report recommends that further work on this issue be progressed.
It is indeed a complex issue which I raised during the briefing I had in the Attorney-General’s office. It was confirmed that there are some justifications for FGM, be it for therapeutic and medical reasons, also for gender reassignment, or sex change surgery.
I find a little bizarre the increase in cosmetic procedures. However, clearly there are women who will argue their right to and consent to the procedure known as labiaplasty, in the same way women will defend their right to and consent to breast implants.
My interest was twofold when, over the weekend, I visited our local newsagency to purchase a new publication on the market. This glossy magazine is called NipTuck. I had heard of it because the young woman who I believe is a co-publisher is a former student of Nhulunbuy High School and I know her and her family well. I was interested to look at the work she is producing. Clearly there is a consumer market for this type of publication, which is all about cosmetic surgery from whoa to go: cosmetic procedures for correcting dental problems and everything else you could possibly imagine. There is a market for advertisers to assist this publication and, as we know in Australia, there is a growing trend in consumerism, and there is nothing wrong with that. My husband was a little shocked when he saw me reading this publication. I said, ‘Don’t worry, this is for work’. There were several advertisements featuring doctor such and such and clinics all around the country that do surgery on women’s genitalia as part of a cosmetic process. It is a bit bizarre for me personally, but there is clearly a market for it.
There is a grey area, and the first of the six recommendations addresses this area and states:
- It is recommended that the Commonwealth, States and Territories consider working with communities, experts and other stakeholders to clarify the legal and policy position of female genital cosmetic procedures, with a view to presenting a report to the Standing Council on Law and Justice, or another appropriate ministerial council, if necessary.
Madam Speaker, I take the words at the opening of that sentence and the close, words like consider’ and ‘if necessary’ qualifies that recommendation meaning that in future meetings of the Standing Council on Law and Justice the Attorneys-General around the table may decide it is not worth pursuing. It will be an interesting discussion and an interesting aspect of the law to be looked at and considered.
While that is and will remain a grey area and peripheral matter for legislators, the important matter today is this bill ensures a loophole is closed in the Criminal Code Act to ensure women, be they girls or adults, are protected from the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House and commend it to honourable members.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also thank the Attorney-General for bringing this important issue before parliament. I also thank the member for Nhulunbuy who does lots of research on these issues, much more than I could do. I will take her advice on what is in the NipTuck magazine and leave it at that.
I would also like to say thanks for some advice I received from the minister’s staff in relation to a query I had regarding clause 8 of Part XI Division 4. I will come back to that in a minute.
The purpose of this bill is to expand the application of section 186C of the Criminal Code Act to adult woman rather than just applying it to children. The amendment will ensure the offence of taking another person from the Northern Territory, or making arrangements for the same with the intention of performing female genital mutilation, is applicable to both children and adult women, so who could oppose that. Also, it brings us into line with the United Nations resolution, as mentioned in the second reading, which urges countries to condemn all harmful practices which affect both women and girls, and to take all the necessary measures to protect them from this form of violence. That is important wording at the end ‘this form of violence’ because that is what it is.
On this basis, the United Nations resolution does not limit the practice or protection by age. Last, the second reading says:
- Female genital mutilation is an unnecessary and harmful practice which will not be tolerated in the Northern Territory nor when it is afflicted on Northern Territory residents, children or adult women outside our jurisdiction.
I fully support what the Attorney-General said in the second reading and believe any fair-minded person would agree. Changing the thinking of people from a country where this is permitted, or at least not frowned on – we need education to go with this as well. Customs different to those in Australian can sometimes be claimed as an excuse for this behaviour, and it would be part of the government’s responsibility to ensure people are aware this is not supported by Australians. That is clear from the Attorney-General’s second reading speech.
On the issues I raised, clause 8 Part XI, Division 4 – I am reading from the explanatory notes – says:
- Section 447(1) provides that section 186C, as amended by this Act, only applies to offences committed after the commencement of this Act.
The simple explanation given to me was the Criminal Code Amendment (Female Mutilation) Bill 2013 provides that section 447 will be inserted into the Criminal Code Act. Section 447 contains the transitional provisions for the amendment to section 186C concerning adult females who are removed from the Territory for the purposes of female circumcision.
In relation to section 447(3) the explanatory notes say:
- Section 447(3) provides that the amended section 186C is only applicable if all alleged criminal conduct occurred after the commencement of this Act. Where a course of conduct is alleged to have occurred both before and after the commencement of this Act, section 447(2) is applicable.
I had a problem working out the difference between those two. The answer I received, thanks to the minister and staff, was specifically that section 447(3) provides that amended section 186C is only applicable if all alleged criminal conduct occurs after the commencement of the act. Where a course of conduct is alleged to have occurred both before and after the commencement of the act, section 186C, as in force before commencement, continues to apply.
The purpose of section 447(3) is to ensure there is no confusion if a defendant were to be charged ‘between dates’. Where a course of conduct is alleged to have occurred both before and after commencement, the bill provides for the conservative policy position, which is that of not changing the criminal law so it has retrospective application. That is much clearer now; I understand what that means.
One issue worth raising today is that in recent times – I remember watching Dateline on SBS three or four months ago – there was the issue of male circumcision, with a great deal of discussion around whether that is a lawful procedure. Does the Attorney-General know if there is any move by governments down that road? I am not saying I agree, because there are many issues. If you had seen Dateline you would know that religious, cultural, and medical issues, along with many others matters, were discussed.
This bill does, at least, allow the question to be asked. Circumcision in Aboriginal communities has traditionally been the norm. In various religions, such as the Jewish religion, circumcision is spoken about in The Bible. Other people say it is unnecessary and a form of violence against a young child. There are arguments in the medical profession with some saying it is beneficial and others saying it is not.
We are talking about this issue, but it begs the question whether governments are looking at male circumcision. Does the Attorney-General know of any discussions occurring in parliaments around Australia in relation to the matter?
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt any fair-minded person would support this bill. I thank the minister for bringing it forward today.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will start with the observations by the member for Nelson while they are fresh in my mind. I do not have notes in front of me.
In relation to female genital mutilation, the question of how that washes over into male circumcision is implied in what we are talking about. Female genital mutilation implies, by its very title, harm. We heard the member for Nhulunbuy quite accurately describe a number of manifestations of harm resulting from this barbarous practice. That type of harm is considered to be reprehensible by any society that believes the rights of the individual should be protected as far as possible.
The argument made by the member for Nelson is a question of benefit: whether male circumcision has a benefit or not. In some quarters there would be the argument that male circumcision is harmful but I suspect, as a general proposition in front of the community or most of the males I know who underwent that procedure long before their memory allows them to remember, it is the equivalent to a shrug of a shoulder and, ‘I don’t know if it has changed my life’. There is not the requisite harm in male circumcision to excite a response from the legislators in Australia.
In the Aboriginal context, some of the procedures, particularly in areas around Central Australia, step beyond the boundaries of mere circumcision as we know it. I suspect if there was a complaint from a person who has undergone that procedure unwillingly that the full force of the criminal law would be brought to bear, because that person would be within their rights to make a complaint of some form of assault.
That comes down to the nub of what we are talking about, and I made reference to it earlier when I said this is about rights. There are cultural rights, but rights occur on a scale and certain rights supersede others. It has been a structure of our system, captured throughout the western world, where, as a community, we pursue the protection of human rights. That has evolved over many hundreds of years. If you go back to England in the 1700s under Lord Wilberforce, the abolition of slavery was an acknowledgement of human rights. That fight and those arguments have continued for a long time and continue even today.
It is within my, and the member for Nelson’s, living memory when women were paid a different salary because of their gender and nothing else. If you went through the newspapers of the time, there were many menial and uncomplicated jobs advertised in the women’s section for paid employment. All the professions were the preserve of men and were advertised in different parts of the newspaper.
We have been struggling with this concept of individuality, something not well understood by many people. The more it rises in our consciousness the more we understand a person should be measured by what happens in their head and their heart rather than their gender, how much light they reflect, whether they have some physical difference or damage, or any number of things. That is the perfect measure of a person. Before a person reaches 18 their parents should protect and try to encourage those things. That is the standard in the western world. It is not the standard practice in other cultures, and it is more than legitimate for us to say we reject cultural practices which are repugnant to those concepts of liberty.
When the former government moved to introduce legislation to this House to deal with female genital mutilation for children it was a justifiable step to intrude into a person’s cultural rights, even how they raise their children, because of the legacy effect it left for the child who becomes an adult. This is an irreversible procedure we are talking about.
Moreover, there are women trapped in cultural practices despite the fact they are adults who deserve the protection of this community. This bill is about extending the boundaries of the protection it will afford so people can make their own choices. This leads to the observations the member for Nhulunbuy raised in relation to cosmetic procedures.
I am aware there are a number of cosmetic procedures which have all the hallmarks of female genital mutilation, particularly when it comes to dealing with surgical alteration of the labia majora, which I understand can be done reasonably easily. In fact, on an episode of Embarrassing Bodies recently – the show out of England which is quite confronting – they demonstrated that procedure.
They are, essentially, medical procedures, which are not Part 2AA offences. They are offences which exist under the Griffith model of the Criminal Code. Basically, the Griffith model of the Criminal Code proposes something is unlawful unless it is authorised, justified or excused. Those three words are defined at length in the Griffith model of the Criminal Code.
Both the excuse and justification provisions are there, and there are authorisation provisions. The authorisation provisions, from memory, can be found in section 26 of the Criminal Code Act and allow for medical procedures. Those medical procedures may include one which brings about what was called grievous harm, which means some permanent injury was inflicted. Of course, a number of medical procedures inflict permanent injury, such as amputations, the removal of body parts like damaged eyes, and the removal of healthy body parts which are affected by other forms of malignancies. That legal protection needs to be there for a medical practitioner.
Consequently, I expect a person undergoing a medical procedure which implies voluntariness in the first instance and which is conducted by a medical practitioner – I presume people who do cosmetic procedures are – could do so lawfully even though it meant a permanent change in the body, which is grievous harm by the old definition under the Griffith model of the Criminal Code.
That means it is authorised by law. The law says you can have these medical procedures. If there was an absence of voluntariness it would not be a medical procedure. If the person involved was under the age of 18 years, for example a person who had not become an adult, I would be surprised if any medical practitioner would engage in cosmetic surgery unless it had the blessing of the parents.
I return to the nexus I described at the outset where the issue of medical procedures is basically benefit versus harm. If the parent of a child goes to a doctor and a medical procedure is conducted which sees an amputation, clearly a doctor would do so only in circumstances where they believed the benefit would outweigh the harm. The law recognises that.
I would be surprised to hear of any medical practitioner who would engage in a cosmetic procedure on a child without the authority of the parents. I suspect a doctor who chose to do something like that would have intruded into criminality, if not gross negligence. Nevertheless, they are valuable considerations and add to the lustre of thinking surrounding this debate.
I hope that answers the questions and issues raised by the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I thank them for their consideration and thoughtfulness in relation to this debate. They have both clearly cast their minds to this issue and they have asked some poignant and worthwhile questions.
Having made that recognition, there is little more to add other than to say this is good and sound law, and I hope we never have to use it in this jurisdiction.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Report – Auditor-General’s February 2013
Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Report – Auditor-General’s February 2013
Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 19 February 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, at the outset I acknowledge and thank the Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, for the fine work he does on behalf of Territorians in auditing the accounts of the Northern Territory government. As part of that auditing, he regularly hands down his Auditor-General’s reports. I note there are several on the Notice Paper today, and I will be speaking on behalf of opposition to the February 2013 report because, ostensibly, it goes through the accounts of the Treasurer and audits the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement, which is the audit findings and accounts of the financial year ended 30 June 2012. That was the last budgeted year I had control of, the last outcome I had as Treasurer, and this is an audit of the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement. These are the audited actuals of the returns of the 2011-12 financial year.
The audit opinion is clean, with the exception of uncertainty surrounding the valuation of work in progress in the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program, otherwise known as SIHIP: in other words, a clean bill of health fully accounted by the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Statement for the last budgeted year in which I was Treasurer, the 2011-12 year. You had the Auditor-General independently audit the books. The Auditor-General has given it a clean bill of health: a clean audit, with the exception of SIHIP.
In relation to SIHIP, I understand the detailed toing and froing between the government agencies and the Auditor-General went to how you calculate the level of progress. Were some houses deemed to be completed or not, and, therefore, how are they accounted for in the government’s assets? Are they completed at handover of key, or are they completed when physically finished and able to have the keys handed over, but they have not been.
That is the level of detail you get into when assessing programs such as SIHIP and whether that work is on the books or off the books in regard to the deemed completion of progress of that work. That is purely a technicality and could only be viewed as such. This is a very clean bill of health – a tick. The financial statement of the actual return on the figures of the 2011-12 financial year are contained in here, and they have been audited and found to be accurate and correct by our independent Auditor-General.
Therefore, let us go to what it shows. It shows, in Table 1, the nett operating balance was in surplus by $165.7m as at 30 June 2012. I know the government does not want to use a nett operating balance and uses the financial sector rather than the general public sector. They also use the fiscal balance not the nett operating balance. However, the nett operating balance – it is in the explanatory notes – is an accurate depiction of the health of the books.
The government has said, and had a paid advisor say in the lead-up to the August 2012 election, that we were ‘borrowing on the Bankcard to pay wages’. Here it is in black and white, in fact, audited …
Members interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: They cannot help themselves. These are the audited accounts, and the Auditor-General said the CLP has been telling porkies ...
Mr Tollner: Explain that to the member for Casuarina.
Ms LAWRIE: No, CLP little porkies. You have been caught out telling porkies. You told porkies before the August election, and have been telling porkies since the election. You keep saying, ‘You were borrowing on the Bankcard to pay wages’. Today we are debating the independent Auditor-General’s report to the Legislative Assembly. I will quote Table 1 because it elicited much excitement from the members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim, who have been telling the biggest porkies. I will go back to it Table 1 …
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw my last comment. The members for Port Darwin and Fong Lim have been ‘pretending’ Labor was ‘spending on the Bankcard to pay wages’. That is factually and completely wrong. It is contained in the Auditor-General’s audit of the financial statement of the 2011-12 financial year; so you are wrong. Factually and accurately, we were in operating surplus. The surplus was $165.7m as at 30 June 2012. That is the nett operating balance. That is the result of that financial year and …
Mr Elferink: So how does the debt keep going up? You can produce surpluses and debt at the same time!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Ms LAWRIE: There is an opportunity for the member for Port Darwin to go on his frolic of fancy of what these accounts are and his interpretation of them. He can contribute his interpretation. However, the black and white, written and signed off by the Auditor-General, is what I believe to be fact.
The fact is there was a nett operating balance, a surplus, of $165.7m as at 30 June 2012.
He went on to say in employment, and where the majority of increases were occurring in the payments – this is pertinent to the behaviour of this government so I will talk about it – they are in the former Departments of Children and Families, Education and Training, Health, and Justice.
If you say to Territorians there was real and genuine growth in employees across the Departments of Children and Families, Education and Training, Health, and Justice, they would think, ‘That is good because that is core business’. It does not get much more core business than that.
We know the CLP has a different set of priorities. Under the CLP we have lost about 170 staff from Children and Families - the child protection agency. They have taken an axe to the Department of Education, cutting that budget by 10%, and we are losing about 120 teachers even though they say, ‘No, there is just a nett loss of 35’. Do the figures and call the schools like we have. Do some real research instead of …
Mr Elferink: We saw the quality of your research yesterday, if I recall.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: You do not like it because the truth hurts, John. They have taken an axe to training. What the members opposite do not realise is that when you take an axe to training you cut the crucial programs that help people get into employment, which is largely affecting Indigenous Territorians. You say you will help the bush, but you have taken an axe to training and are hurting the people who need a leg up into employment the most.
As for Health and Justice, you heard the member for Nelson’s question today in Question Time regarding the loss of health workers from our remote clinics. Rather than bothering to get to the bottom of any real information, it was dismissed out of hand.
In Justice, we know a series of lawyers has been sacked. They are outsourcing and it will cost them a motza, but they will come to realise that when it is too late. Has anyone asked the Minister for Correctional Services how much he is spending year-to-date actual compared to budgeted in Corrections? You might want to ask that question, Treasurer.
You might want a briefing from Treasury. Send them over to Corrections, run their eyes over the books, and you might find how you are travelling year-to-date – actual expenditure compared to budget. If you want to know you can ask, Treasurer. That was just a tip because the public service is leaking like a sieve at the moment.
Table 1 showed a nett operating surplus of $165m. Table 2 is the summary of cash flows, which shows nett cash flows from operations are in surplus – actual return at $638m. If you take out the cash deficit, you have an operating balance of cash and deposits at $519m surplus. We have not seen the fairy tale fantasy of the members opposite yet.
We then go to debt – Table 3 shows the components of the financial position. Nett debt as at the 30 June 2012, a month before the election, was $1.89bn. Did you hear that? No interjections from members opposite that time. That is amazing. They did not bite at that one, did they? I will throw that out again just in case you missed it: as at 30 June 2012, $1.89bn in nett debt.
Mr Elferink: According to you, that is a good result.
Ms LAWRIE: Let me think about it. Is the figure they have been repeating in their weird mantra $5.5bn?
When they say Labor left a debt of $5.5bn, they are factually and actually wrong. No, you were left a debt of $1.89bn not $5.5bn. Let us not let the truth get in the way of the CLP fantasy.
They are always talking about the projected debt growing in the out years to 2016, and that is projected not actual. The actual debt is $1.89bn. The CLP is predicting their debt to be $5.1bn. We know many things fluctuate over time; revenue and expenses fluctuate. You can best predict in this actual financial statement and the audited accounts and outcomes – what you see is an improvement from what was budgeted to what was actually achieved in the 2011-12 financial year. At budget time you predict what you think your incomings and outgoings will be through the forthcoming financial year and, of course, things change.
That being said, we had a 2011-12 budget prediction and the actuals, which is the audited account, have come in at an improved outcome. We did better, if you like, than we expected in the surplus and the improvements in these actual figures. Without a doubt, nett debt as at 30 June 2012 was $1.89bn, not the $5.5bn the CLP would have people believe.
I note the Treasurer’s annual financial statement audit by the Auditor-General comments on a mini-budget tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 4 December 2012. It indicates the forward estimates suggest the growth in the debt ratio will continue to grow for another two years at least. The point I am making is, one often lost on many people, that by their decision in their budgets – the mini-budget and the May 2013 budget – they are increasing debt. They would have people believe the fantasy that they have debt under control.
Labor had budget surpluses which produced a $582m reduction in debt until the global financial crisis hit, which saw a consequential wipe out in GST revenue flowing from the Commonwealth, as well as the need to dramatically increase the capital program to ensure Territory businesses did not close.
The result of that prudent behaviour was a 13 000 increase in employees in the Territory. We had low unemployment and the economic outlook of being the fastest growing economy in the nation. Things are a little different these days. We have a predicted $5.1bn debt from the CLP. We have unemployment rising to 5.5%: some 7500 people looking for a job. Thank you, CLP, for putting them into unemployment land because you simply do not know how to manage your budgets.
Another thing I point members’ attention to is figure 6, the components of the general government sector revenue. It is important to note that 81% of those components of revenue are from grants. Included in that is the GST. Quite appropriately, the Auditor-General makes comment on how reliant the Northern Territory is on grants rather than more normal sources of revenue, such as tax. The GST, as we know, is a tax, but it is collected by the Commonwealth, so it is not under the control of the Northern Territory government.
In that pie chart we can see a small 8.2%, revenue from taxation, 3% from royalties and 4% from the sales of goods and services. The Auditor-General then provides a breakdown in figure 7 of the general government sector expenses. This is where the expenditure goes in the general government sector: 38% of the government spend in 2011-12 was on employee benefits. Yet, if you listen to the rhetoric of the CLP, it was all on a bloated, inefficient public sector with employee after employee being put on. However, when you look at the facts, the breakdown is 38%. It is not the bloating the CLP would have us believe. They have never been too close to the truth in their rhetoric in this area.
In figure 8, if you look at the general government expenses on a functional basis – this is also pertinent to understanding if you are spending across your government revenues – what areas show the bulk of the spend? The breakdown is 24% for health – the highest – followed closely by education at 20%, down to public order and safety at 12%. Then you start to drop quite a bit and housing and community amenities is at 9.9%, and social security and welfare at 7.4%.
From that you can see the big government service delivery engine rooms of health and education make up about 44.3% of government expenditure. Ask yourself, what is the role of government? If you understand the role of government, which obviously the CLP has great difficulty grappling with, government has to ensure a quality of health and education services so we get the outcomes we need as a society and are able to attend to prosperity through the education of Territorians and give everyone the opportunities that come with a good education. Government has a responsibility to ensure that if you are sick you get the appropriate attendant care, and to deal with the trauma we see across the Territory, whether it is road accidents – we will see a few more on the Stuart Highway thanks to the stupidity of this government. However, I digress.
These are the actuals, this is the breakdown. This is what was happening under Labor. It will be interesting to see, in a couple of years’ time, these figures compared to the CLP, and we will be doing that. That is where you will see the dramatic impact the Country Liberal Party cuts have had on core government services.
You will see the percentages drop in education fairly dramatically given the extent of the cuts across education. Some of the health cuts are coming to light, more by stealth than by information being provided in an open, accountable, or transparent way by the Country Liberal Party government. However, when the actual returns come in and are audited, such as this Auditor-General’s report, there is no hiding from the truth.
I am proud of the truth in this picture of where we have come in on an operating surplus, where we have a $1.8bn debt, where we have genuine expenditure into health, education and public safety, and where you can see a very reasonable spend – a 38% spend on public sector employees. This is a healthy set of books by any measure. I guarantee it will not be the measure of the Treasurer. He believes the only place there is global warming is the planet Triton. This is the calibre of the man we have to deal with ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Triton is a moon.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin saying Triton is a moon. It was described in a parliamentary report by the member for Fong Lim, I believe, as a moon or a planet.
Mr Tollner: You talk about research, check it out.
Ms LAWRIE: You described it as a moon did you, Dave? Triton?
Mr Tollner: I did not describe it as anything.
Ms LAWRIE: You are a winner for Triton are you? ‘Beam me up’.
Mr Tollner: You do not even know the context of it.
Ms LAWRIE: Global warming, remember that report, it is coming back to you.
Mr Tollner: It was not a global warming report.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I refer the Treasurer, who is on a moon in global warming parlance, to the Auditor-General’s view in the annual financial statement for 2011-12, which is, of course, the last financial year in which Labor had control of the budget. Essentially, he said the actual financial outcome for 2011-12 was $175m, $81m better than the expected outcome considered by the Legislative Assembly in May 2011 and predicted in the budget.
We came in at $175m in surplus. That is an $81m improvement in what was anticipated. I am pretty happy with that result. Obviously we managed in really difficult times with dramatic losses in revenue as a result of the reduction in GST and the need, in the private sector, for government to step up its spend in the capital program. Sitting behind dry subjects such as these figures is what we did, where we delivered 13 000 new jobs into the Territory in two global financial crisis affected years. We also delivered the major project which is underpinning growth in the economic data for the Territory.
The CLP has been busy dismantling anything that worked because of their bizarre views, sticking their heads in the sand and not listening to what industry needs government to do. They have gone on a blame game, sacking public servants and depressing their wages. In real terms, Territorians will go backwards because inflation is starting to skyrocket. Prior to the CLP we had inflation sitting under 3%. It skyrocketed under the CLP and is now sitting around 3.9% and is likely to increase.
These guys are a basket case. They do not know how to govern, and you see that in the tragic data regarding job losses and in unemployment, with 7500 Territorians looking for a job. They have completely made up the debt position in the Territory. The Auditor-General deals with facts. I will deal with the facts of the Auditor-General: we were in surplus, we had a $1.8bn debt and you tell people whatever you want.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness for the work he does. It is often a thankless task and, I imagine, quite tedious at times dealing with all those figures. Thank you Frank, I am sure the public appreciates you being the guardian of their funds and ensuring we spend money wisely.
There is only one mention in the Auditor-General’s February report of agencies within my portfolio responsibilities: the Nitmiluk National Park Board, which comes under the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I am also the lucky local member for the park. Before I turn to Nitmiluk Park I would like to give the House a few statistics about the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
There are 87 parks and reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission across the Northern Territory, which equates to over 4.4 million hectares of land and includes 15 national parks and two marine parks, being Cobourg and Limmen Bight.
In the last 12 months, there were nearly three million visits to our major parks. What I am most proud of is that 32 of our parks are jointly managed with traditional owners. These joint management arrangements provide local jobs and local business opportunities for Aboriginal people. I hope to increase that figure, with several other joint management arrangements being worked on right now.
Our parks are internationally famous for their attractions, their unique fauna, flora and geological features. Cobourg Peninsula, for example, was designated the world’s first site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.
Turning to Nitmiluk, the board was formed in 1989 under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. The board is responsible for managing the nearly 300 000 ha national park owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal people. Most of us are aware of this park’s amazing features: the beautiful sandstone country with deep gorges, broad valleys and numerous significant cultural sites. The deep gorge carved through ancient sandstone by the Katherine River is the central attraction of the park. Other features include local accommodation, a boat ramp, boat tours, camping, canoeing, fishing, helicopter tours, an amazing kiosk and visitor centre, a picnic area, swimming and world-renowned walking tracks.
The country you walk through is Jawoyn country, and it changes from savannah grasslands to rocky escarpment outcrops and rainforest pockets. It is a challenging trail with beautiful swimming holes at every campsite and amazing Jawoyn rock art which can be viewed at the amphitheatre. It is an amazing part of the NT and one of our most internationally-known locations.
As the report notes, the purpose of the board is to manage this fantastic park and provide for the management and control of certain other land. Nitmiluk National Park has been jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government since 1989 when the Jawoyn people won their land claim for the area. The park management is heralded as a model for joint management between Aboriginal people and governments across Australia. The board is comprised of 13 members appointed by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. Of the 13 members, eight are Aboriginal traditional owners of the park nominated by the Jawoyn Association. The position of chair of this board is held by a Jawoyn traditional owner. The board also employees a number of Jawoyn people as rangers.
I am pleased to advise that the audit of the financial statements of Nitmiluk National Park Board for the year ended 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, and the Auditor-General said everything appeared to be okay.
The report noted park revenue declined from $0.8m for 2010-11 to $0.6m for 2011-12. The revenue received was distributed to traditional owners, who received 60%, and the former Department of Natural Resources, the Environment, the Arts and Sports, NRETAS, received the remaining 36% on behalf of the NT government.
The report found that revenue dropped because of a drop in visitor numbers. My colleague, the Minister for Tourism, has implemented a fantastic Do the NT marketing campaign. As the minister has outlined to the House, Do the NT is a new brand strategy for Tourism NT to better sell the Northern Territory and boost holiday visitor numbers. I agree with the minister, we live in one of the most spectacular places on the planet with unique spiritual, cultural and natural attractions. To improve visitor numbers and park revenue, the NT government is investing an extra $8m into tourism. This shows the priority this government places on tourism in order to help build a better Territory economy and create more jobs. Our new brand position expresses a can-do attitude which is part of the character Territorians have always embraced.
The Northern Territory government’s new Tourism Vision 2020 strategy aims to deliver $2.2bn in annual visitor spending to the Northern Territory’s economy by 2020. The first phase of the new campaign was rolled out across the east coast of Australia in August and September 2013. I am looking forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Tourism, to see how we can promote this great park to boost visitor numbers. I also look forward to working with the new Chair of the Jawoyn Association, Lisa Mumbin, to develop more tourism and job opportunities through the board and the park. Jointly, we will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park, and I look forward to seeing a much better financial outcome.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank Frank McGuiness for again doing a sterling job in his role as Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General’s report confirms everything we have said. It confirms the numbers put out by the previous government, which this government bases its criticisms on. There is nothing in the Auditor-General’s report inconsistent with what the previous government was or is saying.
The Opposition Leader has a completely different take on it. She suggests they had a fiscal surplus. I am unsure if she read the same budget or was Treasurer in the previous government based on those comments. It flies in the face of everything the Auditor-General found and everything she presented when Treasurer of the Northern Territory. As I say, it confirms the level of debt the Territory is wearing and confirms the projections the previous Treasurer made in relation to growing of the debt.
The fact is, and she may try to deny it, we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of debt. That is the projection the previous Treasurer made. The Country Liberals find that unacceptable. The previous Labor government obviously found it quite acceptable. They did not think they were in such a bad way, but the Leader of the Opposition puts an interesting qualification on that. She says, ‘They are projections, they are rubbery, these projections will change’. The fact is, the former Treasurer set this government up for a projected debt of $5.5bn.
I agree things change and incidents occur which make those projections invalid. However, if you look at the way Labor governments operate, I do not know of too many instances anywhere in history …
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, the Opposition Leader says projections are often rubbery, and that is certainly the case, but when you look at the track record of the previous government, particularly the previous Treasurer, spending never reduced. In fact, year on year, spending increased. When you look at Labor governments through the history of time, it is hard to find one with a record of paying down debt. Labor governments are quite good at creating debt.
The bizarre statement the Opposition Leader made a minute ago was that they had a surplus in the last budget. If there was a surplus, why was debt increasing? It is ridiculous to suggest debt would be increasing from the $1.8bn or $1.9bn currently to $5.5bn and they are running surpluses. What a ridiculous statement the Opposition Leader made.
Nothing is more graphic in explaining the way Labor governments operate than the last federal government budget by Wayne Swan – we all heard Wayne Swan projected there would be $1.1bn surplus in the last federal budget. What was the reality? The reality was he announced, on budget day, a $19.4bn deficit. He went from a $1.1bn surplus to a $19.4bn deficit, a $20.5bn turnaround. The numbers are astonishing. He announced on budget day that is where they would be. When the numbers finally came in – we now know the budget deficit for that financial year was over $30bn. Goodness me, what would $30bn injected into the Northern Territory economy mean for us? It would be like winning lotto. A $30bn deficit is the state of the finances Wayne Swan left the Australian people with, and these guys have the audacity to suggest they are good fiscal managers. It is absolute nonsense.
The Auditor-General’s report Frank McGuiness has put together confirms, without a doubt, everything the previous government was doing.
I need to respond to some of the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. She said the big parts of the budget were the big government service delivery engine rooms of health and education. I know a bit about the health system, briefly being Health minister, and the health system we inherited was massively under stress. Infrastructure and buildings were falling down around the ears – and still are to a large extent – of its workers. Morale was low, and there was an urgent need of reform. Unfortunately, the previous government did not have the wherewithal or the ticker to make the necessary reforms.
I will give Kevin Rudd some credit; he had a view on creating hospital networks. The previous government created two hospital networks but they had no capacity to hire or fire and no capacity to spend money. Those networks were, in reality, a sham. They were nothing but window-dressing to say, ‘We met your reform requirements’. In reality, the reform that previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was calling for never took place in the Northern Territory.
I often said the previous network boards, whilst manned by wonderful people who wanted to do things, with no ability to determine staffing, no capacity to spend money or make financial decisions, were really meeting for tea and cakes. That has changed under this government. The biggest reforms to the health system are now being implemented by the Health minister, who is doing a sterling job in that area. One would expect over the next months, years, couple of years, there will be some significant changes in the way services are delivered to Territorians through our health system.
We are interested in giving communities greater control of the health services they require. We have faith in employees at the coalface to make decisions. We have blown away those silos of power which existed within the Health department under the previous government, and we allow local communities to make decisions which affect them the most. That is why we now have two Health Services Boards in place which will drive local engagement, local community input, and allow people working at the coalface to make decisions critical to meet the health needs of the people they service.
That is what service is about. Service is not about loading up the Health department with more and more money and not changing the way they do business. People want service. They do not care how much money goes into any particular department. They demand the service that best suits their needs.
The other big service delivery room the Opposition Leader mentioned was the Education department. If it was about service you would think the results of children attending school to be a great indicator of the service we are providing. The previous government, in the last five years, increased funding to the Education department by 46%. Teacher numbers increased by 20% in the last five years of the previous government, but school results, the outcomes of that spending, went backwards. We have the worst school results in the developed world. Look at the NAPLAN results in the Northern Territory and it is pretty well a sea of red. There are very few standout schools in the Northern Territory.
However, we are castigated for making changes to that system. I put to those opposite: this is not about the amount of money we spend; it is about the service we provide. That is, fundamentally, the difference between our government and the previous government – those on the other side who believe the result is how much money you can allocate to a service or agency. For the previous government, spending was an outcome in itself. Hence, we now have a projected debt of $5.5bn. In the last budget they handed down there was an almost $900m budget deficit. That was $900m we did not have and had to borrow to pay for our own needs.
There are 230 000 people living in the Northern Territory and we are spending $900m more than we have. The previous Treasurer, the Opposition Leader, believes that is a good thing and it was necessary we spend more than we earn. She said, ‘This is not a business, this is a government’. Is that an excuse to borrow more and more? The Greeks do it, I suppose the Spanish do it, and the Portuguese do it. A few countries spend more than they earn then borrow. The result of that is called a debt crisis and Europe is in the grip of it at the moment. This decadent living beyond your means does it.
The first thing we need to do, as a government, is understand how much we have to allocate and how we deliver the best possible service with that. Ignoring the money side of things and saying, ‘We can throw any amount of money at a problem’, is the answer. The Banned Drinker Register, which they saw as a solution, was a costly exercise. Mandatory alcohol treatment is very costly too; however with the BDR there were still drunks all over the place; there was no lessening of the number of drunks.
At least with mandatory alcohol treatment there is the ability to reduce the number of problem drunks in the Northern Territory. You are giving people a chance at a new life, turning them from a social problem into a social benefit. Getting somebody off the grog living a normal life, possibly getting a job, working for a living and paying their bills, and getting their kids into school is a social dividend that can come from mandatory alcohol treatment. The previous government seemed to think spending money was the right thing to do.
Every time we announce a spending cut the opposition goes completely nuts. In their view, spending money is what we have to do. Despite the fact the Leader of the Opposition talks about the big service delivery rooms, the previous Labor government was not so interested in service delivery. They were interested in spending money to alleviate problems, with no idea how it would be spent or how it would relieve the problem.
What sort of government believes putting an alcoholic’s name on a register will stop them drinking? How ridiculous. That system had to go.
It was interesting to hear the Opposition Leader banging on about how much money we are spending in Corrections, warning me to keep an eye on the Minister for Correctional Services. I am keeping a close eye on the Minister for Correctional Services, and what I see is a bloke who has enormous capability, is taking a fresh approach to how we deal with prisoners, is looking at the service delivery and outcomes of programs, and seeing if there might be a chance – it is not the case, but if he was spending more money than allocated, I would still look at his programs and say the outcomes he is achieving in the area of Corrections are worth the additional expenditure.
Mr Elferink: However …
Mr TOLLNER: However, as the Minister for Correctional Services says, that is not the case. In fact, the Minister for Correctional Services is also …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: As I was saying, the Minister for Correctional Services is getting better results than the previous Labor government and spending less money doing it …
Mr Elferink: We are making money in several areas.
Mr TOLLNER: He interjects saying, ‘We are making money,’ and, as Treasurer, I am keen to see that. I can confirm the Minister for Correctional Services is not blowing his budget. Interestingly, a big part of the debt burden we have is emanating from that department for construction of the brand new prison at Howard Springs, the one the member for Nelson originally said they would never have but then backflipped. When it is completed, the projections in the final days of the dying Labor government were that it would be …
Mr Elferink: The figures are $495m, blown out to $610m.
Mr TOLLNER: Its capacity was already breached at 130% or something along those lines ...
Mr Elferink: It will be full on the day of opening.
Mr TOLLNER: It will be choc-a-block on the day of opening, and we will probably need another prison the day it is opened.
Hopefully, with a new Correctional Services minister having the complementary portfolio of Attorney-General, we will see a change in that number. If the Sentenced to a Job program works we might be able to fit all our prisoners in that prison, which would be a remarkable achievement given the previous Labor government’s projection showed it was beyond capacity the day construction commenced.
This government’s view is that it is not necessarily about money. It is about changing the way you do things and looking for areas to reform because we understand we have no money. We are looking down the barrel, irrespective of what the Opposition Leader says, of a projected debt of $5.5bn. We cannot, in all consciousness, let that situation stand. Ultimately, it is not us who pay that bill, it is our children, and I do not want to leave that legacy for our children to mop up.
Generally, the thought amongst Australians is you work hard, look after your children, give them an education, provide them with food and nurture them. They get a job, you continue to save money, put a little away for a rainy day, and when we leave this world we leave a legacy for our children. Some people might say, ‘I want to make sure when I die my kids have a house. I will stump up the funds for the mortgage.’ An inheritance is what most Australians want to leave for their children, something to give them a better start than they had. In this situation we are leaving our children in a worse place than we were, which is appalling.
In the early days of the previous Labor government, under Clare Martin and Syd Stirling, there was recognition of that and they put together FITA, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act, which highlighted these aspirations. They did not want intergenerational debt and saw it as a major problem.
They passed FITA into law. Clare and Syd might not have done a very good job, but they did much better than the next lot, because that was the Leader of the Opposition. She was Treasurer, and that is when we saw the Northern Territory accelerate flat-out backwards and start to rack up debt. That is when the government breached its own law, the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act. It was a shameful time for the Northern Territory. It was a hard time for Territorians, grappling with the idea of leaving children in a situation where they would be forced to pay off the debt incurred by previous governments. It was wrong.
There has to be different ways of doing things, and for the last week we have heard the opposition cranking up hysterically about what is happening in education. I say again, in the last five years education funding under the previous Labor government increased by 46%, teacher numbers increased by 20%, but school results went backwards. We laugh about that at times, but it is a terrible situation. For the opposition to think we should live with that and keep throwing more money at things, employ more teachers when results are going backwards – I am praying the penny drops on the other side and they understand that sometimes it is not necessarily about money. It is about how you structure departments, the services you provide, and how everything interacts with it. More money does not necessarily solve the problem. The Education department is proof: an increase of 46%, teacher numbers going up by 20% in the last five years and school results going backwards.
It is heartbreaking when you see the published NAPLAN results and the Northern Territory is in a sea of red. We are the worst performing jurisdiction in this country, and probably nearly the worst performing jurisdiction in the developed world. That is the legacy the previous government left us. That is what our Education minister is dealing with. We have to find new ways of providing education services in the Territory, because what Labor did was not working. They can bleat and carry on, try to cause hysteria and fear in the community – they are masters at that – but, at the end of the day, when you read it in black and white, when you pick up the NAPLAN results and see us year on year going backwards, you have to scratch your head and ask, ‘Are we doing something wrong?’
Again, thank you to Frank McGuiness for this report. It confirms everything that occurred in the past, and confirms everything this government has been banging on about for the last 12 months. We have to cut spending, focus on service delivery, ensure we are doing what Territorians want us to and, at the same time, drive economic growth and allow the private sector to invest in the Northern Territory and provide jobs desperately needed by Territorians.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, today I make a contribution to the debate on the Auditor-General’s February 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly.
Specifically, I would like to focus on the performance management system audit the Auditor-General undertook on management by the Department of Health of the contract for the provision of aeromedical retrieval services by CareFlight.
The objective of the audit was to determine whether the systems established by the Department of Health support the management of the contract between the Northern Territory government and CareFlight for the provision of aeromedical services and, in particular, enable CareFlight’s performance and contractual obligations to be monitored and managed.
Based on the evidence gathered during the audit, the Auditor-General formed the opinion that the systems established by the department did not fully support the management of the contract between the Northern Territory government and CareFlight for the provision of aeromedical services. It was not a glowing report by the Auditor-General on this issue.
In particular, it did not enable CareFlight’s performance and contractual obligations to be monitored and managed at a level commensurate with that required of a contract of this magnitude. The Auditor-General’s report provides a number of recommendations to the Department of Health focusing on contract management, data collection and analysis. An internal review has been undertaken by the Department of Health aimed at improving major contract management within the department.
Following receipt of the report I met with the Auditor-General to gain a better understanding of the issues raised in this report. At that meeting the Auditor-General expressed the view the work under way within the Department of Health would correct the issues he raised. From the government’s perspective, I told the Auditor-General we would monitor this issue closely and ensure lessons are learnt and our contract management procedures and processes are improved.
However, I need to make it clear that while the Department of Health is now actively working to fix the situation, the problem was created by the former Labor government and those opposite. Labor set the time frame for changing aeromedical services and, by doing so, ripped up a pre-existing contract with Pearl Aviation costing Territory taxpayers $3.5m for early termination. Yes, $3.5m because the former Labor government ripped up the pre-existing contract with Pearl Aviation. That is $3.5m of wasted money: $3.5m paid for early termination of a contract.
Regardless of whether that original contract was poorly constructed, it is clear that when Labor was in charge of the purse strings they failed to manage the expenditure of public monies. These are more examples of how Labor frittered away the precious funds of the Northern Territory government over a long period of time. No wonder our fiscal situation is in the state it is.
The Auditor-General also notes it took 14 months after tenders closed to award the contract. After spending $3.5m to rip up a contract, this time delay under Labor appears lengthy. Why would you, after taking so much time to award the contract, terminate the existing contract at a price of $3.5m? It beggars belief how Labor came to these decisions, and how they can claim they were good fiscal managers.
At the end of this protracted tender process, you would expect the contract, and administration of the contract, to be up to scratch. Unfortunately, the 10-year contract came into effect on 1 January 2013 and, only eight months later, we have an Auditor-General’s report recommending significant oversight improvements are needed. Labor got it wrong at every point in the process of awarding the contract, terminating the existing contract, the time it took – it was clearly a debacle. Any member of the public can get a copy of the Auditor-General’s report and read it for themselves. It was one debacle after another.
My colleague, the member for Greatorex, was the shadow minister for Health during the time the former Labor government was changing aeromedical contracts. I remember him working long and hard trying to hold the government to account, and he did a great job on this issue. It was the topic of lengthy discussion at budget estimates and in the media, but to no avail. It was still managed extremely poorly and evidence of that is in the Auditor-General’s report.
It is unfortunate that, given this attention by the media through the estimates process and the great work the member for Greatorex did in alerting the public to the imminent and present problems, Labor still managed to bungle it.
In closing, I thank the Auditor-General for shining the spotlight on this issue. I acknowledge the hard work already under way within the Department of Health to get their house in order. I note this is yet another clear example of Labor mismanagement when on the government benches.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond to the Auditor-General’s report. I will make some comments on the August 2013 Auditor-General’s report covering the six-month period to 30 June 2013.
As usual, the Auditor-General’s report covers a range of areas as a result of his auditing activities across government. The four areas include financial audits, review of IT systems, compliance audits and performance management system audits. The Auditor-General places considerable reliance on compliance audits as he does not audit the financial statements of agencies per se. The Auditor-General conducted 12 compliance audits and one performance management system audit, along with IT audits.
I will comment on the performance management system audit he performed on the contract for aeromedical retrieval services with the Department of Health. As members are aware, this issue has a lengthy history. As Minister for Health, I oversaw termination of the previous contract and implementation of the interim arrangements. The current government awarded the new long-term contract in January 2013.
It is easy to make accusations about contract termination and how much it cost the public to terminate that contract. What the member opposite, the current Minister for Health, does not and will not tell us about, because it does not suit her, is the problem with that contract and why it was terminated. The text of that will show it was money well spent to terminate the contract and award the interim contract to another entity.
The agency invested many hundreds of hours in upgrading and replacing these services, with improved services for Territorians. It is a complex and important service and largely demand driven. A highly technical procurement and transitional process was embarked upon which resulted in CareFlight undertaking the services on behalf of Territorians for the next eight years. It was not only retrieving people, but a totally coordinated and complex system incorporating the people who make the decision for a medical evacuation …
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Sorry to interrupt, member for Casuarina, but are you speaking to the February Auditor-General’s report?
Mr VATSKALIS: February.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, the February report following the comments by the Minister for Health.
At the moment we have the only coordinated contract where people in CareFlight will respond to a call for a medivac, a person will make a decision, and the plane will fly and return the injured person to hospital.
It was a very complex contract done in such a way to safely medivac people from anywhere in the Northern Territory to Darwin or Alice Springs. The matters are well extrapolated by the Auditor-General and include the lengthy history. It is entirely appropriate the Attorney-General carefully and thoroughly examines all issues in relation to this contract to ensure taxpayers’ interests are properly and fully protected.
I note the finding of the Attorney-General at the time of the audit that the systems established by the department did not fully support management of the contract. I further note that at the time of the audit the department was already implementing the recommendations contained in a review of the matter in late 2012.
After a complex interim period it was appropriate that a review of the performance and contractual matters be performed. The recommendations were taken seriously and were quickly and thoroughly implemented. I note that the Attorney-General advised the timing of the audit was during the period of improvement and enhancement, which is now delivering better compliance to the Attorney-General’s requirements, with ongoing work required and realistic time frames set to achieve continuous improvement. Recommendations made by the Attorney-General are, as usual, very sensible and I look forward to them being implemented in full and will continue to follow this matter in coming reports.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Auditor-General’s February 2013 report. First, I thank Frank McGuiness for his report and particularly for his support of the Public Accounts Committee. As Chair of the committee I heavily rely on Frank for his guidance and in-depth knowledge of the workings of government. He provides invaluable assistance to the PAC, and we all enjoy his company and having such open access to him. He makes himself available to me, to the committee staff, who I know appreciate his support, and to all members of the PAC. I can speak on behalf of colleagues on both sides of this House and say thank you because, Frank, I know you are the kind of guy who would be listening right now. On behalf of all of us, thank you very much. You provide crucial assistance to the Assembly, not just the PAC, by giving assurance regarding the quality of financial statements and the adequacy of performance management systems. The adequacy of performance management systems is a key one, and you and I have spoken at greater length about how important that area of the public service is.
The Auditor-General conducts a range of audits, including audits of financial statements, special audits directed by the Chief Minister and audits of performance management systems. Following the tabling of his reports, the Auditor-General briefs the Public Accounts Committee on issues arising and the committee will often seek further information from agencies. This most frequently occurs with audits of performance management systems where the Auditor-General highlights how agencies may improve their management. Frank always helps us identify issues where the PAC might need to scratch around a bit more and hold public hearings, so we value his findings in these various areas.
The committee’s current inquiry into the management of information and communication technology projects results from issues the Auditor-General raised about a number of such projects. That includes the PAC conducting inquiries into the Asset Management System, the Power and Water Corporation asset management system, and the Department of Health’s grant management system.
The Auditor-General’s February report covers 23 audits of financial statements conducted between 1 July and 31 December 2012. The Auditor-General gave a qualified audit for two agencies. There has been an ongoing issue with NT Build’s financial statements. The nature of the building approval process currently applying in the Territory gives rise to some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall under the Construction Industry Long Service and Benefits Act. NT Build acknowledges this qualification and is working to strengthen its ability to maximise levy compliance. It is also confident a high level of compliance is being achieved.
The second qualification in the report was in respect of the Land Development Corporation. The Corporation was deemed to be a Government Business Division for 2011-12. This meant, for the first time, it was required to submit financial statements for audit. Whilst the Auditor-General was satisfied with the reliability of the financial information provided for 2011-12, he could not satisfy himself about the reliability of financial information relating to 2010-11. The Auditor-General also noted some issues regarding the disclosure of related party transactions and internal audit processes. The corporation undertook to review its policies and commence development of its internal audit plan.
The Auditor-General also noted that the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission has reported operating deficits for each of the last three years and has liquidated financial assets in order to maintain adequate levels of operating cash. However, it is unlikely it can continue doing this beyond 2012-13.
As mentioned earlier, the Public Accounts Committee keeps a watching brief on all issues raised by the Auditor-General in his reports. If any questions arise about the adequacy of an agency’s responses to issues raised or their implementation, the Public Accounts Committee may seek further information from the agencies concerned, or hold hearings and inquiries into those matters.
Thank you again, Frank. No doubt we will see you very soon, and I commend the work of the Auditor-General.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I would also like to speak on the February Auditor-General’s report, which raised a number of matters pertaining to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation, the Land Development Corporation and NT Build.
Today I would like to report on those matters raised by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General commented that the lack of a comprehensive fixed asset register means details about the assets and the extent to which they may represent a combination of a number of assets was not readily available. This may impair the Darwin Waterfront Corporation’s ability to manage and maintain its stock of assets and result in the under depreciation of assets, given individual assets may have different economic lives.
Progress since the report: the Darwin Waterfront Corporation assets review has been completed to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. This now allows the Darwin Waterfront Corporation to make an improved estimate of the depreciation of individual assets within the broader asset classification for the 2013 financial year. A Chief Financial Officer was appointed in March 2013 and will undertake improved financial management for the Darwin Waterfront Corporation.
Moving to the Land Development Corporation, the Auditor-General commented that whilst he was satisfied with the material accuracy of amounts recorded, he was unable to satisfy himself on the reliability of figures for the 2010-11 financial year. In addition, as a GBD, the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is not required to disclose contracts or transactions. It relied upon that exemption and elected not to disclose transactions with entities related to current or previous members of the board. Non-disclosure in financial statements of the relationships and transactions with related parties may result in those statements being misleading.
Given the nature of the Darwin Waterfront Corporation’s activities, the Auditor-General recommended it review its current policy of not disclosing related party relationships and transactions in its financial statements.
Progress since the Auditor-General’s report: the Land Development Corporation has reviewed the policy on conflict of interest. The land register has been updated and reconciled to the general ledger, and an internal audit plan has been developed. The conflict of interest policy and adequate disclosures has been addressed by the corporation to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. The conflict of interest policy is now in place. The 2012-13 audit has been undertaken and an unqualified audit report has been issued.
Moving to NT Build, the Auditor-General commented that the statutory obligation to notify NT Build of the commencement of a project rests with the developer. NT Build has implemented a number of mechanisms to help monitor compliance and identify leviable projects and, consequently, those liable to pay the levy, including monitoring projects where building permits under the Building Act are issued.
It is noted that not all types of construction work carried out in the Territory require a building permit. Due to the nature of the approval process within the Northern Territory construction industry, there exists some uncertainty regarding the ability of NT Build to identify all construction and maintenance projects that fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. As such, I am unable to satisfy myself as to the completeness of the $12 031 220 disclosed as contributions from levy payers in the comprehensive operating statement.
I can respond that NT Build reports the amendment of building regulatory provisions to require evidence that a project notification form has been lodged with NT Build before a building permit is issued. Such an amendment would greatly enhance levy compliance within the building control areas representing the majority of leviable construction works. In this regard, NT Build will continue to work closely with the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to pursue suitable amendments to both the Building Act and the Planning Act in order to strengthen NT Build’s ability to maximise levy compliance.
While the board notes the change to the current building approval regime will have a limited effect, it will enable NT Build to better concentrate its resources on identifying leviable construction undertaken throughout the non-controlled remote areas of the Northern Territory, including on mining sites and other categories of construction. Examples are civil works and some maintenance, as defined by the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act, not covered under the building regulatory provisions.
Notwithstanding the above, the board remains confident a high level of compliance is being achieved, although a level of uncertainty may always exist. As a consequence, NT Build continues to utilise and refine a range of mechanisms to identify construction projects throughout the Northern Territory.
In any event, where non-payment is being detected the board is taking a rigorous approach to debt collection, including legal action where necessary. Further, through the board’s strategic audit and levy compliance program, routine audits of selected construction projects are being conducted to ensure levy payers are declaring and remitting the correct levy.
Progress since the Auditor-General’s report: the amendment to building regulatory provisions to require evidence that a project notification form has been lodged is one of the issues included in the review being undertaken of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. A report will be provided by the government by mid-December 2013.
The portable long service leave scheme for construction industry workers in the Northern Territory has been operating for over eight years. I have approved a review of NT Build subject to further consultation with industry participants. A discussion paper has been provided to industry participants interested in operation of the portable long service leave arrangements in the Northern Territory. The discussion paper provides stakeholders with an overview and an opportunity to comment on key issues involved with the administration of the Northern Territory scheme. It also provides a snapshot comparison of construction industry portable long service leave scheme arrangements in other states and territories.
The review is being undertaken by retired long-term CEO and independent Chairperson of NT Build, Mr Barry Chambers. Stakeholder meetings commenced on 23 September 2013. Stakeholders were provided with a copy of the discussion paper and invited to provide a written submission by 31 October 2013. To date, meetings have been held with the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory; Urban Development Institute of Australia (Northern Territory); the Minerals Council of Australia, NT Division; the Housing Industry Association, Northern Territory; the Chamber of Commerce NT; the Property Council of Australia, NT; the Department of Land, Planning and the Environment; the Department of Treasury and Finance; Master Builders Northern Territory; and the Civil Contractors Federation, NT, the scheme actuary.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I want to make some closing comments and touch on a few matters in the Auditor-General’s report.
Like others, I place on the record my thanks to Frank McGuiness, who has been the Auditor-General for a number of years and is a man of cautious reputation and mindfulness when it comes to the auditing process. I appreciate he sees as his primary client the Public Accounts Committee of the Northern Territory parliament. Of course, people in the public need to be reminded that Frank McGuiness is not a public servant in the traditional sense that he works for the Northern Territory government; he is an officer of this parliament and, therefore, answers to this House, not ministers of the Crown That is as it should be, because part of the checks and balances in our Westminster system mean not only should government be responsible to this House, but this House should have a capacity to independently review, from time to time, the functions of government, hence, officers such as the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.
I wish to make some observations in relation to the Auditor-General’s comments on pages 56 and 57 of his report regarding the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and budget overruns. When I became the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, I became aware of a five-year agreement the former government had established with the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. That five-year funding deal, in essence, went something like this, ‘We promise to pay you this much money and, if you need more, we will keep the options open and give you more’.
This was in the face of a KPMG report which was critical of the management and structure of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission in a number of areas. Several issues were visited by KPMG which then became manifest in the form of recommendations to the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
I determined, as Attorney-General, that I would not accept a five-year funding deal until I was comfortable with the fact the KPMG report had been implemented and its recommendations pursued. I note in last year’s annual report from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission there were two references to the KPMG report from the Director and the Chair of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, but there was no structural information about application of the KPMG report inside the body of the annual report. As a consequence, I determined we would deal with funding issues on a year-to-year basis.
The Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission has the difficulty of any organisation dealing with the courts, where it is uncertain how it will spend its budget. A major case like the Niceforo case will put a substantial strain on an organisation like the DPP or the Legal Aid Commission. For that reason, I am anxious to ensure we continue a close working relationship with the Legal Aid Commission and ensure the KPMG report finds its way into manifested organisational change. In the meantime, funding will continue for the Legal Aid Commission. I look forward to a productive relationship with the Legal Aid Commission into the future.
I pick up on something the Leader of the Opposition said. Yesterday we had the unedifying experience of watching the member for Nightcliff, ably assisted by the Leader of the Opposition, launch an attack based on some pretty enfeebled information. The egg on face that resulted was remarkable. I have rarely seen such an ill-considered approach for attack on government by an opposition. I appreciate an opposition does not have the resources of government but, nevertheless, simple things like checking details are very important.
However, a little more than 24 hours later the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the public service leaking like a sieve and the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services was running over budget. Really? It demonstrates how mere utterance of a rumour – if it was that much – is sufficient for the Leader of the Opposition to say all types of things about corrections staff.
If corrections staff, or any other public servant leak information to the opposition through improper channels, it is a matter of discipline within a public service. The public service, of course, serves the government of the day.
However, we all appreciate that in the real world such information finds its way to opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition should have carefully tested the information. I somewhat doubt it, but if there was such information forthcoming to the Leader of the Opposition, what would be the better way to proceed, particularly while you are still smarting from the folly of the day before? An inquiry, a telephone call, an e-mail, even a question rather than an assertion? No, there was none of the above. There was just an assertion that the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services was running over budget.
I have been careful, as Minister for Correctional Services, to tell the commissioner we will do everything within our budgetary capacity. We will find ways to manage the systems and do everything we have to within the budgets provided. To Commissioner Middlebrook’s enormous credit, he has assisted in the introduction of policies which have, in some places, generated income for the department. I recently signed off on a document where the Northern Territory corrections industry, in its infancy, has already generated some $0.5m of income. We now have to go through the appropriate accounting processes to ensure that money is accounted for and re-diverted to the development of those industries even further, which is what we are trying to do.
I have made it clear to Commissioner Middlebrook that I want to place the Northern Territory’s corrections industry on a much more commercial footing, and we are engaging in those processes at the moment. The enormous resource that sits in our corrections system, largely untapped, will be tapped. The former government was making noises in this direction with the new prison, but my belief is you start here and now. The enormous resource I am referring to is in the prisons right now – labour – an enormously valuable resource in our community. Product prices across the community are linked largely to the cost of labour as well as material, and if you are in a service industry like government, more than half your budget goes on wages. Let us take that resource and see what we can do with it.
I do not believe in convict labour or slavery as a principle. However, if you can use that resource, but guide and train it, and in the process generate an income, you have an opportunity to do some spectacular things to make prisons run less expensively.
That is what we have started doing, and as time passes we will substantially increase our activity. The amazing thing is the mood change in the workshops from prison guard to prisoner has become more like an industrial workshop you find in Winnellie than the captor and captive environment you see in a prison. Why? Because both prisoners and prison officers realise they are working, in many respects, towards a common goal: producing good stuff which is commercially saleable, non-competitive with a Northern Territory manufacturing environment, and can be wholesaled into a retail market, thus supporting local shops with local product. It is a win all the way across the board.
For the record, I am not talking privatisation. I am not talking about privatising prison guard services or anything like that. I am talking about taking what is there and using it in a more commercial sense. Before any suggestion is made, I am not interested in privatisation. I am interested in the commercialisation of what we can make commercial as long as it does not compete with locals. That is what we will do. It is, however, in its infancy. I expect a good result from that productivity. In fact, Northern Territory corrections industries is something I am trying to logo at the moment. I am trying to get it through the right committee in government to ensure we can get the logo up. I wanted to call it ‘Hard Time Industries’, but it is the desire of the prisoners and prison officers to leave that. We will roll it out. It is about using the same money to do different things.
So the Leader of the Opposition understands this, I place on the record that the Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services is currently undertaking a quarterly financial review and closely monitors its expenditure. It provides monthly reports to Treasury, the latest of which was last week. As at 30 September 2013, the Department of Correctional Services was $2.6m under budget. This represents an underspend of 7% of the allocated budget. There are various reasons why costs come down. Smaller prisoner numbers is one of the reasons, as well as effective application of government policy and management practices which see expenditure shrink.
We are developing an operating model and it will cost money to go into the new prison. Unfortunately, the budget was not put together for the move to the prison and, believe it or not, that will be a multimillion dollar exercise. We had to find money for that in the budget and will do it effectively and well. As things go at the moment, we will be in the new prison on time. In the meantime, we will continue being careful with our money.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition to start being careful with the truth. Her assertion she is on the receiving end of information makes clear one of two things. First, she is not and thinks that by being flippant she can accuse the Department of Correctional Services of mismanagement, when in fact it is being managed better than one would expect. Second, she can come into this House relying on information without checking it, and as she did yesterday and again today, make an assertion based on a whisper, if anything at all. As a consequence, rather than checking her information, she has embarrassed herself, her leadership, and the Labor Party of the Northern Territory. Guys, you deserve better.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Report - Auditor-General’s August 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Report - Auditor-General’s August 2013 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to the Auditor-General and his staff.
As a member of parliament I follow the Auditor-General’s reports tabled in this House, and they give a very good record of important Territory business conducted. They represent a forensic bird’s-eye view. Not only do they provide a strategic audit, they also provide very clear recommendations for government to note, act on, and deliver the business of government more efficiently. That relates to not only the finances, but also the management systems. It is obvious, following the Auditor-General’s reports into the mega systemic changes relating to systems being designed, constructed and implemented into delivering public sector efficiencies, that two of these represent the asset management systems, two major projects in the last six years which have provided great challenges in many areas. They are big, ambitious, and, in regard to governance and delivering efficiencies, they will achieve their outcomes in the longer term, and that is quite evident in what the Auditor-General advises government.
Today I will talk about the asset management system for Power and Water Corporation, and will quote from the Auditor-General’s report, page 47, to define this system:
- The objective of the audit was to review the Asset Management Capability (AMC) project to assess the ability of the asset management system to meet the needs of users with a view to providing guidance for future similar projects.
Audit Opinion, page 47:
- The Asset Management System (AMS) implementation has achieved the objectives set out as part of the AMS procurement process. However a number of insights were noted that may provide guidance for future projects.
That is exactly what the Auditor-General will and does provide. It is set out succinctly in the report. Quoting once again from page 47:
- All the key functional requirements that were specified at the outset of the project were considered to have been achieved albeit at a final cost that was significantly higher than the original estimate.
Not only does the Auditor-General highlight the significant increase in cost in delivering this major information and communication technology, the report also talks about the time frames and time blowouts which are, once again, reflecting these major system-wide changes.
It is pleasing to note, once again on page 47, the Auditor-General says:
- Audit discussions with Corporation staff who are the users of the system indicated that the various user groups had a positive perception of the solution, the benefits achieved up until the time of the audit and the potential for future benefits to be realised.
It represents work in progress, the challenges, the grand scale, and also represents the real and new areas of information and communication technology and their application to assets and asset management systems which will deliver the efficiencies of the future.
In regard to this area of the August Auditor-General’s report, there is no doubt the report indicates cost overruns, delays and challenges. However, it is also important to note it is on a time line, is delivering in an area never delivered in before, and it is nice to know the Auditor-General will continue to track implementation of these major systems.
It is also important to put on the public record the landscape of Power and Water at the time. There is no doubt the Power and Water Corporation took a big bite of new systems development. They were ambitious, innovative, it was new technology, but their existing landscape emerged as one of the major challenges. When I say existing landscape, it relates not so much in this case to accepting credit where credit is due, but taking responsibility for previous systems management. You cannot get away from the fact Power and Water Corporation assets were run down, and that relates to a shared responsibility. However, let us get reality onto the public record in 2013, discussing the implementation of this major new system for the Power and Water Corporation.
We are talking about a 27-year history of the conservatives, a CLP government, and a seven-year time frame of the Labor government when it won government in 2001. That is the balance in accepting responsibility and both sides should accept responsibility. Regarding those assets, it came to the fore in 2008 when Territorians realised generation to a degree, but more so the networks and transmission we were operating, was in excess of 30 years old. This came to light in the greater Darwin area.
That landscape was a challenge for the Labor government to address. The independent inquiry into the Casuarina Zone Substation and substation maintenance across Darwin by Mervyn Davies of 4 February 2009 highlighted the detail around Power and Water Corporation’s assets at a time a major new innovative technology was being implemented in the form of the assets management system.
On page 3 of that report of the independent inquiry there is an interesting paragraph which I will quote:
- Over a period of decades the approach to substation maintenance across Darwin has shifted from what was originally a very traditional approach involving routine preventive maintenance as the dominant task type, to one which is now a minimalist approach, dominated by corrective and breakdown tasks.
That was important information taken on board by the previous government and, consequently, it was a period of major infrastructure investment. That investment could not be avoided; it was needed and welcomed. The Casuarina Zone Substation event highlighted the dire nature of the Power and Water Corporation’s assets in the generation, production and transmission of power throughout the Northern Territory.
I considered it important to discuss that today. It was certainly a big wake-up call for the Territory and a challenge for whichever government, because we cannot go backwards, we have to go forward.
This new government has set a new course for the Power and Water Corporation. They have their ideas. The Treasurer has an economic rationalist approach to this and has set a course. Some interesting questions were posed in the House last week around this issue, and we hope to extract more accurate information about the course the new government has set. We have our plan and Labor values we bring to the table about what we consider an essential service. The new CLP government has a different plan altogether.
To sum up, the experience across all jurisdictions has indicated major IT projects like Power and Water Corporation’s asset management system are vulnerable to delays and cost overruns. It is, therefore, important that up-front design and constant monitoring is carried out, and the Auditor-General points that out. I am sure there are many lessons learnt from the project and, in general, the other areas of implementing major information communication projects that fuse the management of assets, plant and equipment, and the systems that produce the services our community needs and desires. The lessons from this project will also be valuable.
I thank the Auditor-General for pointing them out and painting that picture. As we move down this path into other areas of implementation, those lessons on how to do things better will be very important. It has to be discussed in the context of CLP and Labor governments sharing responsibility. There also has to be bipartisan agreement that we will get it right. It is a bipartisan agreement that has stalled in the debate as to Labor values around essential services of power, water and sewerage, and the Liberal values around commercialisation and profit-making in all areas of government, including the Power and Water Corporation. It is reassuring to know we have the Auditor-General and his department continually monitoring and reporting, and guiding government with an independent view. I thank the Auditor-General for his report and the opportunity to comment on it in parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I asked the Attorney-General if this would be adjourned and he said, ‘No, we will clear this up today’. It has not been in front of us very long. Compared to the time the February document has been on the table, this is a short time to comment. I glanced through the document recently and reminded myself of several issues the Auditor-General had concerns about that I wanted to mention.
As other speakers have, I thank the Auditor-General for the hard work he and his staff do in ensuring government is accountable through this independent body.
One area I was concerned about was the Department of Health’s aeromedical contract. The Auditor-General noted that even though there were many findings and recommendations from a July 2005 risk management services review of the aeromedical retrieval service, some of those recommendations were not happening when the new contract came into being. He said this was disturbing given these recommendations were aimed at establishing control frameworks for managing the contract and processing associated payments.
It leads to questions about the department’s ability to manage contracts given the eight years since the RMS review. This was a big contract and it took a long time to be approved. It was an important contract and there was much discussion in parliament relating to whether we should have a single or twin-engine aircraft. I remember getting representatives from a company in South Australia, from memory, Pilatus. They were promoting their brand of aeroplane saying it was very reliable. Others were saying the twin-engine was more reliable but more expensive.
There was a lot of discussion in relation to the aeromedical contract, so it was interesting to see the comments from the Auditor-General. In his key findings he said:
- At the same time the data captured by CareFlight’s systems were not being adequately extracted by the Department to enable it to verify invoices and to generate management reports to meet the needs of both contract managers and clinicians.
- … conduct a review of all invoices paid to CareFlight since the commencement of the contract (1 September 2011 for rotary wing (RW) services and 16 September 2011 for fixed wing (FW) services) to ensure that the Department has been charged correctly in line with the contract specifications, with particular attention to verifying flying hours (noting that additional information is required from CareFlight to enable this to occur) as well as reviewing the rates used for excess flying hours charges;
- … follow up on suspected overpayments made to CareFlight as a result of incorrect invoicing by CareFlight – amount that was being investigated at the time of the audit and was in the vicinity of $185 000;
The Auditor-General mentioned some difficulty in getting retrieval statistics. That is surprising as well. On page 34 of the report, under Retrieval Statistics, he says:
- As data about aero-medical retrievals was not readily available and could not be provided without significant compilation work, the Department was unable to provide me with the number of aero medical retrievals undertaken by location at the time of the audit visit. Documentation provided by CareFlight to a consultant, as part of the review referred to previously, identified 2029 patient retrievals under the TEMRS contract in the period February 2010 to November 2012.
The documentation also lists the top referral sites. It is surprising. You would think every time a plane took off for a location in the Northern Territory, that location would automatically be included in the department’s database. I do not believe I am wrong, but it appears the Auditor-General obtained the information from CareFlight itself, which was giving an NT aeromedical efficiencies presentation. They had the details but the department did not seem to. It says there were 2029 patient retrievals, but the list provided through CareFlight cites 1970 patients.
I do not know how that all fits, but I hope the department has data on where the planes are landing and taking off, what time of year and how many patients. That information should have been readily available for the Auditor-General.
The department has commented on some of the concerns and said an internal review, supported by the audit findings and recommendations, has resulted in a dedicated focus on major contract management as part of the new services framework. I will not go into that, but it highlights the importance of the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General raised some fairly serious issues about the ability to ensure there are no overpayments, and also mentioned a lack of retrieval statistics being easily available. It is hoped next time the Auditor-General reports on the aeromedical service contract those matters are fixed. This contract is worth $27m, so it is not a cheap contract for the government to operate – to ensure the contract is running efficiently and there are no overpayments.
The other issue is the Northern Territory Major Events Company. Last night I mentioned the importance of the World Solar Car Challenge. It was mentioned to me there is a chance the Northern Territory government might drop this event. I do not know if that has anything to do with the company reporting a significant loss of $296 374. The Auditor-General said some of that was because the Arafura Games were cancelled, which had a material effect. He also mentioned that the Alice Springs Masters Games and the World Solar Car Challenge are biennial. It would concern me if that event dropped off the major events calendar.
Except for what the Auditor-General said, this might be a one-off loss. If you take into account that those events are biennial, the cancellation of the Arafura Games may be the one-off cause of why Northern Territory Major Events Company lost money.
He mentioned that the Northern Territory Major Events Company Pty Ltd has not valued or recorded in-kind contributions received in the statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 30 June 2012:
- I was unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to determine the amount of in-kind contributions received by Northern Territory Major Events Company Pty Ltd.
The Auditor-General said the company received significant non-monetary contributions from suppliers and volunteers during events held in the year ended 30 June 2012. The company was not able to provide information detailing the nature of the services it received which would permit a reliable value to be placed upon time contributed to the company by volunteers. He said:
- In my view the company’s inability to quantify the value of volunteer’s contributions represented a potentially material omission from the financial statements.
I presume there will be a response from Major Events. There is none in this report, so perhaps in the next review we could have a response from the Major Events Company.
The member for Barkly spoke about Power and Water and the asset management system. We know there were many problems associated with that, so I will not go into it. The PAC is still looking at the matter.
I am glad the Auditor-General looked at my complaint about a letter which went to the public. A number of people asked what the letter was about. The letter went out in August 2013, prior to the election. A few people asked me whether the contents were accurate or not. I told the Chief Minister it would be nice to send the letter to someone independent. The Auditor-General looked at the allegations and I am pleased he has. He reported on the contents of the letter:
- As a result of my review I concluded that a contravention of the Public Information Act did not occur in that:
statements of comment in the letter were distinguishable from statements of fact;
That is what it is all about; an independent person looked at it. There were many issues at that time about the Gonski report. I thank the Auditor-General for giving his independent view of the document. I am pleased we have a body to look at matters and report back to parliament. I thank the Auditor-General for that as well.
Madam Speaker, I would have liked more time to look at this and give it a more thorough going over. However, that is not the case so I will leave it at that. Those are my comments about the Auditor-General’s report and I thank him for bringing this to the parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will not dwell on this a great deal. The Auditor-General has been his usual thorough self. Once again, I thank him for his diligence and effectiveness in this area.
He has commented particularly on the Department of Health, the Menzies School of Health Research, the Power and Water Corporation, and a number of other agencies. I am aware of the minor issues he found in a number of departments relating to water control mechanisms. However, he has not sought to expand on them in any substantial way, and I am referring to page 57 of the report. I trust the deficiencies he describes have been dealt with internally and, I assume, to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General.
Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to thank the Auditor-General for his efforts. We can get on with the business of this House.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Budgetary Position of the Northern Territory
Note Statement – Budgetary Position of the Northern Territory
Continued from 26 March 2013.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this debate, not so much to focus on the statement but the extraordinary world view the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, seems to have of the financial situation in the Northern Territory.
I love the way she argues she returned a surplus in the year debt grew. Anyone who knows anything about budgeting knows if you return a surplus, debt shrinks; if you return a deficit, debt grows. Surplus means you have spent less than you earned, and deficit means you have spent more than you have earned.
It is a wonderful expression of voodoo economics where you can find a former Treasurer who relies on the qualification of an operational surplus but, nevertheless, relies on it to somehow convince members it is a surplus. Voodoo economics is all you can call it. The product of voodoo is a zombie. If this parliament has ever generated an economic zombie, it would have to be the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition.
I cannot tell you how often I sat, as shadow Treasurer, opposite her in the estimates process and asked about the forecasts of budgetary expenditure in the past. She steadfastly and stridently asserted those forecasts were, essentially, a form of concrete. Of course they are not, because you cannot know, particularly as you forecast into the outer years, a set of numbers you project four years in advance will occur at the time. Nevertheless, year in, year out in the estimates process, she said, ‘No, all this is concrete. This will happen.’ Until it suited her to change her language and we heard the $5.5bn projected debt is a mere projection. You cannot rely on that, it is a forecast. That is an interesting change in position and indicative of the way the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, sidesteps issues.
The forecast she gave in her last budget was based on everything that is known. What is not known, more often than not for three or four years in advance, is how much a government will earn. What is known and capable of being known, generally speaking, is how much a government will spend. That is called planning, and is a process the new government had to go through when we introduced the mini-budget to start dragging ourselves off the precipice, the brink, the chasm of debt the former government was taking us into.
The projected debt of $5.5bn was exactly how much the former Treasurer expected us to be in debt by in four years’ time. With great pain and difficulty, we, through the mini-budget process, took us to a place where we would hit a surplus in four years’ time so we could see debt stop growing. Under the new Chief Minister, that has been pushed out a couple of years because of the enormous pressure that places on the Northern Territory community. It still concerns me that despite the fact we have substantially decreased that future debt in the forward estimates, we still have a debt that is growing this year, next year, the year after, and for years to come.
If we argue for any form of restraint the shrill response from members opposite is we are being reckless. I heard the Treasurer say earlier the children of the future will be paying for our debt of today. He made references to Greece, Spain, Portugal and other countries which saw the credit card as a vehicle to keep touching the well and no consequence would flow from it. Anyone who runs a household knows you cannot continue to rack up debt on the credit card whilst your income is static or shrinking.
Sooner or later the car loan, the credit card, the loan for the last holiday, the loan for the boat in the back yard and the house loan will all catch up with you, particularly if your income shows no appreciable sign of growth. If we understand it in the household, why on earth can we not understand it at government level? Clearly, governments struggle with this concept.
The United States is in the throes of an extreme manifestation of these principles with the Republican Party resisting supply bills and the federal government about to run out of money. Moreover, another piece of legislation required to be passed in the United States is a bill lifting the debt threshold so it can go into more debt to continue paying for its expenditure. If you look at Greece, where people are marching up and down the streets, you see the final manifestation of what happens when a country relies on the credit card because you end up paying so much in interest, the moneylenders demand the money be repaid, and you have to find that money.
One of the annoying things about debt is when you start repaying money you have to repay it first. If you have kids to feed and a credit card debt or car loan and choose not to pay it because you are feeding your kids, the creditors will not say, ‘That is a social responsibility of the parent; we will not take the car back’. They will take the car back; they are not a charity.
To expect lenders to act as charities is nonsense. Whether they are lenders in the commercial or international environment, the money must come from somewhere. It does not come out of the ether. It has to be generated in wealth somewhere and large slices of the money being borrowed by the United States, Europe, Australia and jurisdictions like ours are sourced from China. They are very good at doing the one thing we have become very bad at in the western world: saving.
Save is a four-letter word according to many people in modern economics. They say, ‘All you have to do is borrow a bit more’. We are nowhere near the perilous situation of the United States, Greece, Portugal or any of those countries. For that reason we need not go to extraordinary lengths to rein in our spending. Nevertheless, we must retard the growth of our debt and reach a point where it stops and gets smaller over time.
Peter Costello, former Treasurer of Australia – I spoke to him about this not long ago – said for every year of debt growth you can expect to spend four years paying it back. If you do the sums on that, with the debt growth we have projected because of the legacy items handed to us by the former government, that is 24 years of scratching back that debt before we can get our debt levels down.
The frustrating thing about the former government is they had the opportunity. Post-2001, when the GST was introduced, was a time of enormous wealth for this country. During that period, two governments stood out in this country. One was the Howard Liberal government, which took its debt level down to zero, and the other was the Gallop Labor government in Western Australia, which took its debt level to zero.
The borrowing capacity of the federal government in recent times, and the Western Australian government, to see their way through the GST was built on the fact previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, had understood the necessary but simple principle that in the good times you save, in the bad times you borrow.
The legacy left by the former government was in the bad times you spend; in the good times you spend even more. That would not be so bad, except in the bad times you spend on the credit card and in the good times you spend on the credit card even more. How can that be a sensible approach? As this government finds savings in a number of areas, changes its management systems and those things, what is the response from the irresponsible ones on the other side of the Chamber? They screech and howl about us responding to the legacy item we were left with. If we do not respond, who will? Them? Not a chance. They will not respond in any sensible way.
Eventually it reaches the point where credit agencies say, ‘Your AA+ rating will go down to AA, then down further’. It then becomes more expensive to raise credit, which means you spend more money on interest payments.
As things are tracking at the moment, the chances are in the not-too-distant future we will be paying $1m in interest payments every day. The Education minister has said on more than one occasion how he would love to be in a fiscal situation, as a member of government, to go to a school every and say ‘Here is $1m for your school’, or walk into a police station somewhere around the NT and say, ‘Here is $1m for improved police services’, and ‘Here is $1m for improved health services, and ‘Here is $1m for improved other services’. We cannot do that because that money has to go to somebody who has nothing to do with the Northern Territory other than lending us money.
This is the voodoo economics the former Treasurer thought acceptable. She said increasing our debt situation in the current environment was sustainable. No, it was not. You cannot argue that increasing debt to the end of your forward projections is sustainable. ‘We will bring the budget back into surplus at some point’ is the promise.
I wonder what my bank would do if I said, ‘Yes, I will start paying back the increasing credit card at some point. I cannot tell you when it will happen.’ What bank would accept that? Yet governments of both persuasions, particularly the former Labor government, think you can spend your way out of problems with no repercussions. Of course there are.
I do not want to end up in the situation Greece has, or Spain, or Portugal, the so-called PIGS. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, PIGS, an acronym made up by economists during the GFC. That malaise is still there and still a threat to the international financial marketplace. If the Americans cannot get their gear together in the next few days there is another calamitous potential threat to the international marketplace. Sooner or later you have to pay it back, it is as simple as that.
It has just popped into my head, but I will give you another parallel. You forever hear arguments about social justice, particularly from the members opposite. The taking of Aboriginal land and those things has to be paid back, and they make strong emotional comments about how things have to be paid back to people who have lost out. How will we pay back to the children just born or yet to be born? How do we pay that debt, because they will have to pay the debt we are raking up now? The same emotional argument should apply because we are biting into their freedom, liberty and capacity to build a future so we can satisfy our most immediate needs. It is precisely the same argument, but it falls flat because it is money, and money is what economists and economic rationalists think about.
Madam Speaker, it is what I think about because I am an economic rationalist. The only counterpoint to economic rationalism is economic irrationalism, and that is preached by Labor parties around the world. They think the budget of a jurisdiction is an issue you deal with like health, education, law and order and those things. It is not just another issue, it is a fundamental and core issue. If you want to deal with health, law and order and other issues, you have to pay for them. You can rack it up on the credit card, as done by the former Labor government, or you can live within your means. That is the only truly sustainable way anybody, any jurisdiction, any household can run itself and a budget. Get your budget right and you can deliver those services. If you do not get your budget right, you are taking away from people into the future just as if you were stealing from them today.
For that reason, I am grateful for the change of government. Whilst I realise this government had to make some difficult decisions in recent times, I support those decisions because it is necessary to contain what is and has been happening for a long time.
The former government failed to return the Territory’s debt situation to zero when they had the opportunity. They paid off a little, but nowhere near enough. When times went bad, as they invariably do, they already had a debt and had to start borrowing again. This government has inherited that legacy, and this government has to struggle with that ongoing situation every day.
Madam Speaker, it would be fine if the slate was cleared after every change of government, but that is not how the world works. That is a fantasy, as is the fantasy the former government called sensible fiscal management. It has never been sensible fiscal management; it has always been fiscal recklessness. I am grateful for the opportunity to address it. However, it concerns me that by the time we reach a point where we can address it the mob opposite might be in power.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I held the position of Treasurer of the Northern Territory for approximately six months. The experience of coming into government after 11 years of a Labor government will always be marked in my mind as one of the most memorable periods of my life. One of the most prominent parts of that period was uncovering the mess left by Labor.
At the time, we sought the assistance of various people who formed the Renewal Management Board. Those gentlemen worked long and hard trying to unravel and uncover the mess left by many years of Labor. Those men were distinguished characters from the political past in the Northern Territory – former Under Treasurers and people who held very distinguished positions in the public service of the Northern Territory.
Even with those people around us the task was always going to be extremely difficult because what we found was a lot worse than Labor laid claim to. We have all reiterated it. Even today, every day of parliament, we talk about the escalating deficit we were left and the projected $5.5bn worth of debt under a continuing Labor government.
Thankfully, we are not like Labor. We are responsible when it comes to management of our finances and have worked hard to trim back our spending. In doing so we have demonstrated extraordinary courage, something Labor is not familiar with when it comes to not spending any more money. We cannot clock any more on the public credit card or put any more pressure on the Northern Territory than that already put there by the former Labor government.
It is very tempting to keep spending because people like you when you do. The public think it is great if you spend and spend. They do not like it when you make tough decisions about trimming back funding, and making difficult economic decisions around what we need, what we can do without, what we will plan for in the future.
Under Labor, people were indulged, to some extent, because Labor never said no. It was not part of their repertoire or vocabulary; it was all about spend and worry about it tomorrow. Knowing full well they would not win another election, one could say they went berserk. Their commitments to the people of the Northern Territory were unrealistic and have left us in more than a pickle.
I understand the enormity of the job faced by the current Treasurer, the member for Fong Lim. It is an extraordinarily difficult job in itself, without having to deal with the difficult mess Labor left us. The member for Fong Lim has certainly stepped up. He is strong and courageous and has set us on a path of reform.
We are still committed to our election promises. We are committed to sustaining a high quality of life for Territorians, but are not committed to burdening them with an enormous amount of debt with an enormous amount of interest. Every day in the Northern Territory we pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest, compliments of the former Labor government. What the average person does not realise – I did not realise it before coming into politics – is the financial pressure of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every day in interest means we miss out. It means we do not have that $500, $600 or $7000 to pay for schools, roads or all the things we value in life.
There is an opportunity cost, an economic cost, and Labor made that decision, whether it was intentional or not. I believe it was mismanagement and total ignorance, but they decided Territorians would spend that money on interest, not the things that count: roads, lighting, school vouchers, new hospitals and things we all want and value. They decided to spend without any responsibility to the point where a significant proportion of our money, on a day-to-day basis, is being soaked up in interest repayments. On a micro level, when people get themselves into debt, when they clock up their credit card, they get stuck in the same cycle. They get stuck paying interest repayments only.
That is where we were heading under Labor, just paying the interest off and not making a mark on the debt. That is what our Treasurer is faced with at the moment. That is what I was burdened with when I became Treasurer in August last year. I willingly handed the baton to someone I admire and respect, who is doing a fine job
It is an extraordinarily difficult job. He requires the support of the whole team on this side of government, which he has, and also deserves the respect and support of people across the Territory. It is hard to conceptualise what we have been burdened with as a new government, but I can assure you it is not good, it is not an easy job, and it takes an enormous amount of conviction and courage, something Labor lacked.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. The Minister for Health brought back memories of what we inherited at that time, and the job she has now is an extraordinarily difficult one. I do not say this in a negative way, but I remember seeing the wear on her face during the time she was made aware of the problems. Everybody in the Cabinet was stunned when we realised the enormity of the problem we had inherited. The member for Araluen, the Minister for Health, had to come up with solutions and it was a difficult time for everyone. I pay due respect, and also pay due respect to the member for Port Darwin, our Attorney-General, who operated in the Treasury role in opposition. He did a fantastic job informing our side of politics what was happening. I feel somewhat humbled to be in this position after the members for Port Darwin and Araluen. They did exceptional jobs in the Treasury role, both in opposition and government.
I thank everybody for taking the time to comment on this important statement highlighting many of the issues facing the Northern Territory. It is a difficult time coming into government and finding a $5.5bn debt. As the Minister for Health said, it is nearly $1m a day the government makes in interest repayments. I imagine Wayne Swan, the former federal Labor Treasurer, would have been happy with $1m a day in interest repayments when you have 23 million Australians to wash that through. However, with 230 000 Territorians, $1m a day in interest repayments is an enormous amount. Think about what you can buy for $1m. A figure of $5m in a five-day working week is staggering. If someone goes to work for five days, the government has paid out $5m in dead interest payments. Imagine the roads that could be built with $5m, or ten houses.
The previous government put us into a housing and accommodation crisis in the Northern Territory, the likes of which have never been seen before. One million dollars a day would have gone a long way to solving that housing crisis – the additional public housing and the leverage you could get off $5m in a five-day working week, and the business you could have attracted to the Northern Territory. However, as the member for Araluen rightly pointed out, it was never in the interests of the previous government to look at getting maximum value for your dollar. It was all about spending money as an outcome. That is the Labor way.
The Attorney-General, in his contribution to this debate, made me aware that a Labor government in Australia had paid down debt. The Western Australian Gallop Labor government reduced debt to zero. I am stunned by that, but who says, ‘Never say never?’ That is not the case anywhere else. Every state in Australia that has experienced a Labor government knows that when it comes to managing the economy they are not very good. They are appalling at managing their finances and have no problem spending other people’s money on things that do not matter.
The last debate was in relation to the Auditor-General’s August 2013 report. Some interesting things in that show how the previous government handled finances. Looking at the asset management system of Power and Water Corporation – Power and Water Corporation is a topical subject at the moment. The Opposition Leader likes to confuse Territorians and create a concern for them, suggesting everything at Power and Water is hunky dory and there is no need to reform anything. However, I draw the attention of the House to the section in the Auditor-General’s report about the asset management system within the Power and Water Corporation. This is not the asset management system of government we have heard about, which is a dog’s breakfast and probably one of the biggest messes we inherited in government and have to find a way to fix, but what happened with the Power and Water asset management system is amazing.
In 2006, the AMS project commenced at the Power and Water Corporation. The business case was initially approved by the board and the government for a project cost of $15m to support the implementation of a standard off-the-shelf software solution. It was launched on 21 August 2012, an interesting time – it took them six years to do it. In the meantime, in July 2009, a revised business case was put forward and that $15m budget grew to $27.4m.
A further business case was put to the board and approved in August 2010 costing $32.4m. By that stage it had doubled, and they planned to go live by March 2011. Another revised project schedule was approved by the steering committee in November 2011, with a revised business case valued at $43.7m. This was originally a $15m project. They made decisions all the way through. It was, as at December 2011, $43.7m with a go live date pushed out to March 2012.
In March 2012, the time of the go live date, the government again allowed Power and Water to approve $53.58m to the project. In July, just a couple of months later, $57.8m was approved – $57.8m up from a budget of $15m. It finally went ahead on 8 August 2012, and the Auditor-General said on page 50 of his report:
- The system became operational from 8th August 2012 and “went live” on 21st August 2012, approximately 6 years after the initial business case was approved and 4 years after the revised project approach was approved. The final cost of the project was more than three times the initial budget that was approved by the Board.
Thank you to everybody who contributed to this debate. I hope the Chamber notes the statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report
NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report.
The NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report paints an encouraging picture of the size and performance of the service over the past year.
Let me talk you through some of the highlights. The report shows, in just 12 months, the Country Liberals are already making significant improvements in police recruitment. During the reporting period, the NT Police Force saw a significant injection of additional staffing to the police ranks of 184 new police recruits. This, for me, is perhaps the most encouraging result of all because it delivers on an election commitment to build our police service and help Territorians feel more secure. The community should be heartened that there are now more police on the beat, keeping our streets safe across the Territory.
Twelve fire recruits also joined the service during 2012-13, adding significantly to our firefighting capabilities. An additional Assistant Police Commissioner has been created in Alice Springs, something warmly welcomed by the community.
Coming from Alice Springs, I know how concerned the community was about crime levels under the former Labor government. I am pleased to say we are turning that around with additional resources in personnel.
Significant infrastructure developments have occurred, including a purpose-built special operations command headquarters, new police stations and housing at Ramingining and Gapuwiyak, and a new purpose-built facility at Berrimah for the NT Fire and Rescue Service and the NT Emergency Service.
Over the 12-month reporting period we saw a reduction in total property offences reported across the NT of 8.4% on the previous year under Labor. There were also 7.7% fewer victims of property offences compared to 2011-12. In 2012-13 there were fewer complaints against police, reflecting the professionalism I have come to expect and respect amongst our officers.
During the reporting period, almost 165 000 drivers were breath tested, which was significantly above the performance target of 150 000. Additionally, 1.258 million mobile speed camera checks of vehicles were conducted, which was also significantly above the performance target of one million.
The NT Fire and Rescue Service exceeded the majority of performance measures targeted, including the number of community education awareness programs delivered. Raising community awareness is a vital part of their work and this result deserves special mention.
During the reporting period, the NT Emergency Service also conducted 32 training courses and issued 183 qualifications.
In summary, I thank our hard-working Police, Fire and Emergency Service personnel for their hard work over the past year. The professionalism of the work you do for Territorians, often in the darkest hours, is to be highly commended. Rest assured your efforts to keep the community safe do not go unnoticed.
MOTION
Violence on Mitchell Street
Violence on Mitchell Street
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government, in light of the serious violence in Mitchell Street, introduce changes similar to the measures introduced in Newcastle which have been shown independently to have:
1. reduced alcohol-related non-domestic assaults by 33% over the last five years, a 26% reduction in hospital ED admissions
2. 82% community support for the small reduction in late trading hours
This motion is about doing something positive to bring a change for the better. That change will require both government and opposition to show courage and support some relatively minor changes to licensed venues in Mitchell Street.
This motion is also about the culture of alcohol in our society and the influence the alcohol industry has on our politicians and political parties. It is if we care about the police who have to keep the peace in Mitchell Street and who are on the front line when it comes to alcohol-fuelled violence. It is about whether we care for our paramedics who are also on the front line in Mitchell Street, dealing with injured people who are intoxicated and violent. It is about whether we care enough for the nurses at RDH who have to deal with the victims of alcohol-fuelled violent incidents and the associated trauma. It is about whether we care for the doctors who do their best to repair and bring back to health the same victims, and for the doctors and police who have to pass on the dreadful news to a loved one that someone has died. It is about whether we care about a community that wants to stop violence of any sort, especially alcohol-fuelled violence, and especially in the CBD.
In the end, it is about whether the Chief Minister, his Minister for Alcohol Policy, the Leader of the Opposition, and the rest of us care more about the alcohol industry lobby which, Australia-wide, uses its considerable influence over political friends in high places to ensure protecting the alcohol industry is more important than protecting our doctors, nurses, paramedics and police, and many young Territorians who are, unfortunately, caught up in an alcohol culture that permeates much of our society today, and protecting the law abiding citizens who want Mitchell Street to be a safe place for a night out.
You get some idea of what the government is doing or not doing to make a difference from the answers to questions in these parliamentary sittings about alcohol-fuelled violence in the CBD. The answers show an unwillingness to take on the liquor industry, and a lack of leadership by the government to deal with this problem.
The Chief Minister admits the violence in Mitchell Street has much to do with alcohol. He says police and the dog squad had to make five arrests after 4 am, and the police had to clean up the mess after drunken fights and even closed down Mitchell Street. He says there are lockouts at 3 am. He admits the statistics show things have not improved. He says he wants to make Mitchell Street a safe place for families. Should it not be a safe place for everyone? He says if things do not improve they will bring in drastic measures but did not say what those measures would be, and made no mention of the licensees’ responsibilities.
He says Territorians need to drink responsibly, a message that is obviously not getting out there, but alcohol is a core social value. He wants the police to solve the problem. He wants the police to protect the liquor businesses so they can operate as they do now.
In reply to a second question about alcohol-fuelled violence in Mitchell Street he said police conducted Operation Omaha last year. That title was last used in the invasion of German occupied France; it must have had some similarities. We saw more than 50 police working on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. He said he was pleased to see a strong police presence. He said six arrests were made, two for assaults and 28 people were put in the watch house. The Chief Minister then made this classic statement:
- The public has a reasonable expectation that government and police will respond to issues of community concern as they arise. The community pays taxes and they want police to be able to provide policing in Mitchell Street. This is the core business of the police force.
However, these high visibly targeted operations are only part of the response. Police are out in the CBD every weekend with regular patrols with assistance from mounted police and the dog squad. He goes on to say:
- Licensees were very supportive of the police operations ...
I will not answer that cop out. I will quote from an article in the NT News about Vince Kelly, President of the Police Association, dated 14 October:
- The police union has accused the NT government and the liquor industry of risking lives to protect the profits of a few hoteliers.
In a scathing attack, NT Police Association president Vince Kelly said pubs and clubs on Mitchell St, Darwin, should close earlier and that it was appalling that Chief Minister Adam Giles would not consider it.
‘They’re putting our members’ lives, health and safety at risk for the sake of a few publicans and a few people who want to tip grog down their heads’, he said.
Further on:
- … Mr Kelly said it was disgraceful that scores of extra police had to be retasked.
NT Police were not able to confirm the numbers but Mr Kelly said it was 50 or more officers from the greater Darwin area.
We know that was the case.
‘I don’t know why the rest of the NT has to watch resources being diverted to one street in Darwin so a few publicans can make money’, he said.
‘For the Chief Minister to talk about personal responsibility it only goes so far.
What about the responsibility of publicans. If they sell alcohol until 5am on Saturday morning what do they think is going to happen?’
Mr Kelly said other states had cut trading hours to 3am with lockouts from 1am and he wanted the same for Mitchell St.
I could not have put it more succinctly myself.
The government is too close to the liquor industry and is avoiding its responsibility of getting to the cause. It waits until the problem explodes then invades the CBD with Operation Omaha at taxpayers’ expense. The Chief Minister said he would get tough but does not say much except banning notices, unless he meant more Operation Omahas, and they will not last. Imagine the cost. We have a budget deficit! Fifty police on late night duties every weekend; police have better things to do than pick up the mess on Mitchell Street caused by others. By the way, if you need 50 police to patrol Mitchell Street, does that not say something is wrong?
The Minister for Alcohol Policy mentioned the Mitchell Street alcohol accord on the 7.30 Report and described it as flimsy. That is definitely an understatement. Today we had the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill legislation, a funny name, but it is trying to do something after the event. Today’s motion is about doing something before the event to reduce the chances of violence happening. To top it off, the government wants to introduce bracelets on banned drinkers, an idea that would not only be extremely costly to operate, but a waste of valuable resources, and highly impracticable. It is a BDR where police will be responsible – more taxpayers’ money and wasted resources, whereas the original BDR put the onus on licensees.
The reality is none of this will make much difference and there is no proof it will be effective. It is part of a mishmash of wishful thinking that deflects the public’s attention away from the real issue. All these proposals move responsibility from the licensee to the taxpayer. It deflects responsibility away from the alcohol industry. The government does not want to upset them – small town, influential people, good mates needed to win the next election. They have businesses to run so do not rock the boat. If you do not believe the government wants to be sweet with the AHA, remember the annual awards dinner earlier this year. I quote from an ABC News item of 14 May 2013:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles has defended the Northern Territory’s drinking culture as a ‘core social value’.
Speaking at an Australian Hotels Association (AHA) annual awards dinner in Darwin last night, Mr Giles said the tradition of ‘having a coldie’ in a pub should be ‘enshrined’ as part of Territory life.
‘This is our lifestyle. This is the way we live’, he said.
Mr Giles said the government would do its best to support the liquor industry.
Of course, the Minister for Alcohol Policy was also at the dinner. He was reported as saying:
- A year ago, Territorians were made to feel like criminal suspects every time they went into a bottle shop, publicans were something akin to heroin traffickers and innocent tourists were turned away every time they lobbed into a liquor takeaway or the like.
Mr Tollner said publicans had been unfairly represented in the media as not caring about alcohol abuse in the community.
The statement from the ABC also included the following comment:
- In February, AHA chief executive officer Paul Nicolaou told the ABC that problem drinkers ‘were society’s problems, not the AHA’s’.
Mr Tollner told last night’s gathering the AHA does care about problem drinkers in the Territory.
‘Unlike what has been fed to the media in previous months, these guys are actually very keen to deal with the problem caused by alcohol in the streets’.
Do you really believe that after what the AHA chief executive officer said?
After reading the comments from the Chief Minister and his deputy, who is also the Minister for Alcohol Policy, do you really believe they are serious about the problems of alcohol in Mitchell Street? They are too close to the cause. However, tonight they have the opportunity to do something. To give every member of parliament a chance to do something positive, I hope both leaders will allow their members a conscience or free vote on this issue.
For those who do not know about the changes in the Newcastle CBD, here is a summary. In 2007-08, local police commander, Superintendent Charlie Haggett, ex-Manly rugby league player, and Tony Brown, a local businessman and solicitor who voluntarily led and represented over 150 city residents, small businesses and concerned citizens lodged undue disturbance complaints with the Chair of the New South Wales Liquor Administration Board and the Chief Magistrate of New South Wales Licensing Court, Mr David Amarti for changes to licensing conditions to all 14 trading post-midnight hotels and nightclubs in the Newcastle CBD. After prolonged legal proceedings, Mr Amarti agreed to the restrictions.
These restrictions have been changed slightly, but this is what they are today. I can table a copy for members if they wish.
The Newcastle intervention – under trading restrictions, reduced trading hours:
All premises are prohibited from trading later than 3.30 am, originally 3 am.
These relatively minor changes in late trading hours have come under a great deal of independent examination and scrutiny, with findings announced by the University of Newcastle School of Medicine and Public Health, and Professor Miller from Deakin University. Tony Brown reported these independent findings at a recent conference:
- The identified benefits of the reduction in late trading hours are convincing and compelling. They include:
an internationally unprecedented 33% reduction in alcohol-related non domestic assaults for the five years following a small reduction in hours compared with the previous eight years. This can be translated to preventing nearly 3000 younger people being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence on Newcastle streets since March 2008. Alcohol-related non-domestic assaults are now at a 14-year low
47% reduction in assaults inside Newcastle’s 14 CBD hotels
26% reduction in related hospital emergency department admissions
82% community support for the small reduction in late trading hours
76% patron support for the small reduction in late trading hours
a very important reduction in preloading, the primary predictor of alcohol-related assaults
a reduction in the average levels of binge drinking
overall reductions in assaults, much better than that achieved in Sydney, Wollongong and Geelong who do not have CCTV systems, but no reduction in late trading hours
an increase in the total number of licensed premises, including restaurants and small bars in the Newcastle CBD, and an increase in sustainable business diversity away from the late trading binge barns
an improved night economy with more money being invested and spent by visitors.
I refer people to a recent study by Professor John Wiggers from the University of Newcastle.
The vast majority of 2008 Newcastle late trading venues remain open. During 2008-11, 13 businesses closed in Geelong in comparison with two in Newcastle, and one of those was burnt down. Patrons reported spending more money on average in Newcastle on a night out than in Geelong. In Geelong, Deakin University research teams were unable to conduct interviews before 11.30 pm because of the lack of patrons, whereas Newcastle teams successfully conducted interviews from 9 pm because the patrons were already out – unquantified but significant reductions in public health, policing and related costs.
It should be noted that Professor Miller from Deakin University said in some Victorian cities reliance on a lockout or curfew alone, without a reduction in late closing times, increased the level of violence.
These changes have strong support, especially from those on the front line in the local community. The Last Drinks Campaign is made up of the Police Association of New South Wales – no small association – the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives’ Association, Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Association Federation of New South Wales, the Health Services Union, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and Drink Tank have been strong lobbyists for change in New South Wales.
Here is the poster they are using to get their message out. It says, ‘They kicked and punched my partner as we tried to get him into the back of the ambulance. It’s just got to stop.’ Steve Pollard, paramedic.
This is what the Last Drinks Campaign says:
- Alcohol-fuelled violence continues to be a major problem for local communities around NSW.
For emergency service workers such as doctors, nurses, paramedics and police officers – the people on the front line of dealing with aggressive drunks – alcohol-fuelled violence is a constant occupational hazard.
That’s why four major organisations representing emergency service workers in New South Wales banded together to form the Last Drinks campaign. The campaign is seeking to tackle the issue of alcohol-fuelled violence head on, by challenging the 24/7 drinking culture that has permeated modern Australian society.
The coalition believes strongly in evidence-based policy solutions. And the evidence shows that the most effective way to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence in the Australian context is by placing restrictions on the late night sale of alcohol. In particular, the recent experience in Newcastle has shown a sustained decrease in the number of night-time assaults of over 30 per cent – which was achieved after a number of restrictions were placed on licensed venues in the Newcastle CBD.
…
The Last Drinks campaign has been seeking to have the Newcastle model extended to other parts of NSW. If it works in Newcastle, it can work in other areas with similar problems.
…
A national Essential Research poll found that 80% of Australians support mandatory 3am closing times for licensed premises to curb alcohol-fuelled violence. This figure rose to 85% for people in NSW – showing the very high level of community support for the Last Drinks campaign.
That is the end of the quote from the Last Drinks Campaign.
When opponents to this motion say, ‘You are whingers, wowsers, you are nanny state supporters’, as I heard the CLP say in the last election, they are denigrating the police, doctors, paramedics and nurses who see what goes on week in and week out.
Will the government suck up to the AHA by letting them off their responsibilities and, instead, waste our money and resources on flimsy alcohol codes, banning notices, bracelets, alcohol protection orders, more police picking up drunks, and more precious resources being used in our hospitals and ambulances dealing with the results of drunken behaviour in Mitchell Street?
Queensland is considering changes. The Courier-Mail on 18 September said:
- Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie has flagged tougher penalties for drunken violence alongside a potential overhaul of trading hours for pubs and clubs.
He said he was also looking at the success of winding back trading hours in combination with an earlier lockout as is currently done in Newcastle.
It comes after The Courier-Mail today reveal an expert panel assembled by Mr Bleijie to help overhaul liquor licensing laws had recommended scrapping the 3am lockout and winding back trading hours to 3am.
Further on, the Courier-Mail said:
- A leading Queensland surgeon and police have called for a 1am lockout to be combined with the winding back of pubs and club trading hours.
Maxillofacial surgeon Dr Anthony Lynham and police union president …
It reminds me of Vince Kelly here:
- … Ian Leavers yesterday said they supported winding back trading hours to 3am but believed combining it with a 1am lockout and drink restriction measures like those used in Newcastle would be a more effective move.
- It was reported overnight that Queensland’s controversial 3am lockout for pubs and clubs will be scrapped and trading hours wound back under plans being considered by the Newman Government.
An expert panel assembled by Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie to help overhaul the state’s liquor licensing has recommended the change in a move it says will curb alcohol-fuelled violence.
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research stated in a paper on 2 December 2009 titled The Impact of Restricted Alcohol Availability in Newcastle:
- To evaluate the effect the Bureau examined changes in the number of recorded assaults, the number of assaults linked to alcohol and the number of police call outs to licensed premises before and after imposition of the above-mentioned restrictions.
In Christchurch, the city council has proposed a one-way door policy after 1 am for bars, and a 3 am closure to prevent and reduce alcohol-related harm. Scott Weber, who I met on a trip to New South Wales a few years ago, is President of the Police Association of New South Wales. He said in a 2010 media release:
- We need to see measures that stop alcohol-fuelled violence from happening in the first place. Experience has shown that earlier pub closing times, lockouts, and the restrictions of high alcohol content drinks actually work. What is more, research has shown that 85% of people in New South Wales want these measures to be put in place to stop the epidemic of alcohol-fuelled violence in their communities.
It is not only interstate people who support these changes; it is Territory frontline workers, the people I expect us to support: the NT Police Association, The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the AMA, and the union covering the paramedics, United Voice. We have already heard what the police association said, and what Vince Kelly said on the ABC recently and it could not be clearer.
Let us hear what the United Voice Branch Secretary, Matthew Gardiner, had to say ...
Mr Tollner: What does he have to say?
Mr WOOD: He represents the paramedics. You laugh again like you laughed at the nurses, and that will be reported. He represents the paramedics …
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Do not take that tone. Just because it is …
Mr Tollner: He also represents the Labor Party.
Mr WOOD: I am a neutral observer. This union represents the paramedics and Matthew Gardiner wrote this:
- As the Professional Ambulance Officers Union, our members are continually exposed to the ongoing elements and impact of alcohol violence and the tragedy this violence often brings to the victims and their families and the wider community. We are in support of the Newcastle Last Drinks Campaign and the measures introduced to address and ultimately reduce alcohol-related violence. We have discussed the Last Drinks Campaign with our paramedic members who fully support any initiative which will address and or reduce the statistics of these casualties.
Further to the measures introduced and implemented in Newcastle, we are seeking that there is a review of the Responsible Service of Alcohol requirements and training to ensure they are updated and enforced to meet the changing demands of the hospitality and alcohol industry trends, improvement of public transport, such as free buses, increasing taxis, and a review of licensee legal accountabilities to obtain and maintain a liquor licence for clubs.
Our frontline paramedics wish to express their gratitude for tabling this motion as we need to definitely address alcohol-fuelled violence in Darwin to ensure the safety of the club/pub patrons, the community and our frontline professionals.
I hope you do not laugh, member for Fong Lim. I have a letter from Yvonne Falckh, Branch Secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. She says:
- The appalling behaviour of drinkers and party-goers along Mitchell Street must be addressed with some urgency. Lives are put at risk due to the late night club hours and excessive binge drinking habits of nightclub participants that has resulted in major injuries and even death. When will the government put a stop to such behaviour? When will legislation be introduced to protect the public?
The flow-on effects from excessive alcohol consumption are many, including permanent injury, huge health care costs, grief, job loss, major risk to our frontline workers, including healthcare staff and police.
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation NT Branch support your efforts to introduce legislation into parliament to protect the public, sometimes from themselves. Mitchell Street is a great party-goer street with dire consequences.
I appeal to all members of parliament to support Gerry Wood’s motion to change licensing conditions along Mitchell Street and put common sense and protection of the public and the frontline workers before business profits.
A letter from Peter Beaumont, NT Branch President of the Australian Medical Association says:
- The Australian Medical Association NT supports any reasonable regulation that is likely to lead to a reduction in alcohol-fuelled violence. We understand that regulations introduced in Newcastle limit the hours that hotel or club patrons can access alcohol have been well accepted by the public and have resulted in a significant reduction to alcohol-fuelled violence.
I have a letter from Phillip Carson, Associate Professor of Surgery at Royal Darwin Hospital and council member of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons saying:
- The NT Regional Committee of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons has lobbied both the previous and current NT governments about introducing evidence-based policies to minimise alcohol harms, largely falling on deaf ears.
One of the most effective policies under the control of state and territory governments is the control of the availability of alcohol, which is again being raised by the Mitchell Street carnage.
Concentrating efforts on the few hard line alcoholics at the end of the line, which is the main feature of both LNP and Labor governments high profile policies, has been shown to be very inefficient in cost benefit terms.
Delia Lawrie is both right and disingenuous in deflecting attention to the wider picture, that is, takeaway sales and violence as a result of off licence sales. But the same principles of limiting density and hours of operation of outlets also apply there.
The local college committee includes surgeons from Darwin and Alice Springs with over 100 years of cumulative experience at the front line treating people suffering from the direct and indirect effects of alcohol misuse. We are committed to support any evidence-based measures which will reduce these harms. We strongly support your reported current efforts to reduce alcohol availability in Mitchell Street.
Phillip Carson also raised some interesting matters:
- Fractures of the face in the NT are closely related to alcohol misuse – 90% - thus a very useful method of measuring the success of otherwise interventions.
Overall, the NT incidence was the second highest in the world but they have decreased slightly in recent years as a result of the intervention in remote communities.
About a third of the fracture load comes from the inner city Darwin …
… and this cohort have increased since the last published figures study in 2011. The statistics comes from the maxillofacial unit.
Here are some more facts and figures from Phillip Carson:
- Per capita, alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory is 50% higher than the rest of Australia.
Sixty percent of 6678 assaults in the Northern Territory in 2010 were related to alcohol. The estimated total social cost of alcohol misuse in the NT in 2004-05 was 642 million.
I am sure we can update that. Do not forget the words of the AHA: it is not their responsibility.
There is more. Tony Brown led and represented local residents and small businesses in Newcastle to bring in moderate changes to closing times. That is what this is about, the responsible serving of alcohol referred to as the Newcastle direction. I will read part of what he said about the Chief Minister in regard to today’s motion:
- Chief Minister Giles has flagged drastic ‘measures’ to address the problem. What the public, doctors, nurses and ambulance seek instead are simple proven, effective measures to sustainably and significantly reduce the level of alcohol fuelled violence, and other related harms, and failed RSA, while simultaneously reducing the unaffordable high public cost of more police, more arrests, more ambulances, long waiting times and delays in hospital, money much better spent on better education, health and roads in the NT. Mr Giles and the Coalition government can no longer rely on the tired AHA mantra of shifting all blame onto patrons ‘lack of individual responsibility’, when we know that overt 90% of preloaded and bingeing patrons are still served when showing at least three signs of intoxication.
- We now know that for every hour of reduction you can expect around a 20% fall in assaults. This can no longer be ignored by our political leaders. There is a silver bullet; it is political bravery and a will to stand up to the powerful liquor industry to put the safety and health of many ahead of the self-interests of a few. Such unprecedented statesmanship would contribute not only to Mr Giles’ national and international recognition and standing, but that of the Territory and its capacity to effectively prevent and minimise the single most costly and devastating public health scourge in Australia.
By chance, last night I met a retired police officer while having dinner at Salvatore’s, now that we no longer have it at Parliament House. His name is Mick Brennan; he did not mind me using his name. He is a Territorian of 40 years, a copper of over 30 years. He is a member of the Retired Police Association and now a JP. He said, ‘I’ve seen it all in Darwin’, and he still sees it when, as a JP, he is filling in the paperwork after a big night on Mitchell Street. He is a no nonsense bloke, and when I said I was trying to introduce some changes to licensing hours in Mitchell Street, he was rapt. He supported the idea wholeheartedly and said earlier closing times were the only way to reduce violence. I believe he would have liked it to be tougher. Here is an ex-copper who knows what is going on, but will any of you listen to what he is saying? No, it is all about personal responsibility. What a cop out!
In summary, this debate is about standing up for frontline people in the community and seeing whether the government, the opposition and the rest of us are willing to put the foot down and say ‘enough is enough’.
The questions are: will the Chief Minister support his police force by supporting this motion which will lessen the physical risks police face when dealing with violent drunks? Will he keep sweet with the alcohol industry, remembering he said the government would do its best to support the liquor industry? Will the Minister for Alcohol Policy support a motion which will protect the community and workers by introducing some simple and reasonable changes, or will he side with the alcohol industry and support the statement problem drinkers are society’s problem, not the AHA’s?
Will the Minister for Health support a motion that will reduce the trauma and physical and verbal abuse paramedics, doctors, and nurses receive from violent alcohol-affected night clubbers? Will the minister support a motion which will reduce beds being taken up in hospital by people affected by alcohol and alcohol-fuelled violence? Will the minister also support anything which reduces the effects of the abuse of alcohol, especially binge drinking, with its potential health risk now and into the future?
Will the Minister for Correctional Services support changes which reduce alcohol violent offences, meaning less work for our courts and fewer people in our prisons? Will the member for Port Darwin support these positive changes in his electorate?
Will the Minister for Community Services support the changes, especially as we know from the recent 7.30 Report that of the 1400 people on banning notices 80% were Indigenous? Will the minister support a motion that will go some way to helping her people?
Will both parties pledge not to accept any donations from the AHA? Will the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition allow a free vote on this motion to allow their members to be independent members of parliament for this one time? After all, is this a moral issue, not a business issue?
This is your chance to vote according to the irrefutable evidence I have highlighted tonight. It shows simple common sense and measured changes to the supply of alcohol, to lockout times and closing times, and has made a big difference to alcohol-fuelled violence where these changes have occurred.
This is your chance to take a lead in changing this alcohol culture which has ruled Mitchell Street and giving it back to the community to own once again. As Vince Kelly said, it is a chance to put people before profits. Remember Professor Miller from Deakin University said on the 7.30 Report last Friday, for every hour pubs are shut earlier there is a 20% reduction in assaults.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: The AHA says I do not know what I am talking about. I do not care what they say. People with a lot more standing than me, more knowledge than me, say this is the way to go. The evidence is before you from New South Wales Police; Royal Newcastle Hospital; Tony Brown; the New South Wales crime statistics; Professor John Wiggers from the University of Newcastle; Professor Peter Miller from Deakin University; K Kypri, C Jones, P McElduff and P Barker from the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle; the Last Drinks Campaign; the Queensland Attorney-General; and it is conclusive. You have head from NT doctors, nurses, police and paramedics, along with surgeon Phil Carson and retired policeman and JP Mick Brennan, who all want this change.
The Newcastle direction will make a difference. All that is needed tonight is for the NT government and the opposition to bite the bullet. I do not want to hear a response by members copied from the AHA standard manual of arguments against the Newcastle direction. I want a response which shows leadership and independence. Banning notices, alcohol protection orders, bracelets, and alcohol accords have all been spoken about or introduced to avoid one thing: the Newcastle direction.
If the government and opposition do not support this motion they are tied to the skirts of the alcohol lobby. If you believe I am too harsh, wrong, and that is not the case, then support your doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, law-abiding community and our young people, and support the Say No to Violence Campaign by supporting this motion. Do not follow the party line, do not follow the AHA line, break away and cast a free vote. This is an opportunity too good to be missed.
Mr TOLLNER (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. This is one of the most harebrained things I have ever seen. I can inform the member for Nelson we will be supporting the community, which is what this government is most interested in.
It would be interesting to know the last time the member for Nelson was on Mitchell Street in the early hours of the morning or late at night. It would also be interesting to know how many publicans, licensees and people who visit these venues he has spoken to and what type of research he has done. Tens of thousands of people go out most Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights along Mitchell Street to one venue or the other and the vast majority – nearly 100% - behave responsibly, act properly, have a great time, enjoy the time out and go home feeling great. Perhaps they wake in the morning with a headache, but that is what happens when you party to all hours of the morning.
The member for Nelson would have us stop that. If you listened closely to the member for Nelson’s diatribe, most of the people he quoted, particularly the health practitioners and some police, all support prohibition. They do not want alcohol anywhere. Having been Health minister, the view of the Health department is to ban it all, stop it and wind up this terrible industry. People in that area deal with the small minority who present and they see, firsthand, the damage done. It is probably fair to say they are not interested in the entertainment side of our vibrant hospitality industry in the Northern Territory. What they see is the few who make it difficult for everyone.
The member for Nelson quoted Vince Kelly and Matthew Gardiner. You have to take things from Vince with a grain of salt because it is no secret he stood for preselection for Labor in the past. He is a true Labor man. Matthew Gardiner, without a doubt, is a true Labor man. These guys are smarting from the last election result; that is what is hurting them.
Most police I talk to have no problem with people enjoying themselves and having a good time. I do not know one person who has a problem, apart from the odd people who believe in prohibition. However, the vast majority support people having an enjoyable, good time.
The focus should be how to encourage more of that. How do we use that to complement our tourism sector attracting people to the Northern Territory and promoting the Northern Territory, rather than introducing measures detrimental to the Northern Territory?
The member for Nelson is a great believer in the Newcastle restrictions. He told us what the health professionals said about them. Basically, in 2008, restrictions were placed on 14 Newcastle hotels which included drink restrictions, 1 am lockout, 2.30 am or 3 am close, cease serving 30 minutes prior to closing, plans of management, cannot stockpile drinks, and required a dedicated responsible service of alcohol supervisor from 11 pm onwards. After appeal, I think an out-of-court agreement was reached to relax lockout and closing time by 30 minutes. Regardless, that was the Newcastle solution.
Regarding the effects of that, I have some different statistics to the member for Nelson. I have some information from a research organisation called Crosbie Warren Sinclair. Its report revealed that post the 2008 restrictions, nine of the 14 hotels closed, changed hands or went into receivership. On average, there was a reduction in turnover of 27.7% a week. That is not just on the nights, but weekly. There was a 21.7% reduction in revenue, a $22.5m decline in asset value and a reduction in staff in workforce of 22%.
The member for Nelson is probably happy to live with those statistics because the way he sees it, we are just a pack of violent rednecks who love grog and having a good punch up and breaking each other’s jaws. That is what the member for Nelson is painting Territorians as in his message: we cannot be trusted; we are pigs when it comes to alcohol consumption; we go out at night, flog the daylights out of each other and do not care about anything. It is Rafferty’s rules in the north, we are a pack of rednecks and we cannot be trusted.
I am used to that attitude coming out of Canberra, but am quite stunned at that attitude coming from someone in the Northern Territory, which is why I asked how many times the member for Nelson has been down Mitchell Street and seen what goes on. There are plenty of members in this House who have seen what goes on in Mitchell Street. I will not name them, but I can look at them. They know the vast majority of people go there, have a good time and cause no trouble to anyone, but for the sake of a few, the member for Nelson is quite prepared to penalise the many. It almost seems he has a vehement hatred of publicans and licensed premises the way he talks about these people.
Clearly he has not spoken to the licensees along Mitchell Street. I have, and I know the vast majority of them. I have made it my business to know them because I want to understand where they sit.
The member for Nelson seems to scoff and suggest that it is not the problem of hotels but the problem of the police or the community to clean things up. There is no one in society more impacted by these problems, apart from the victims, than owners of the establishments. They have the most to lose. To suggest they do not see alcohol-related violence along Mitchell Street has anything to do with them – have a word to a few of them about the measures they are putting in place to reduce as much of that behaviour as possible. No, the member for Nelson says, ‘I know best, I want to impose everything from above. Stuff what you guys want to arrange amongst yourselves, with the police, the government and a range of other stakeholders’. Forget all that. Let us just charge down the track to the Newcastle solution which saw pubs wound up, people going to the wall, people losing their jobs and the like.
In a wonderful world, perhaps the member for Nelson is enlightened and this is the silver bullet to solve every problem we have. They say, ‘The broken jaws’. I do not know how many broken jaws occur on Mitchell Street, but I doubt it is the sole location broken jaws occur in the Northern Territory. As I say, the member for Nelson is trying to paint Territorians as a pack of rednecks with no personal responsibility, who get drunk and bash each other up because fundamentally they do not care and that is their idea of a good time.
Member for Nelson, that is not the case. The vast majority of people go out for a good time, behave themselves, act responsibly and have an enjoyable time. They are well supported by the community and the businesses along Mitchell Street. A whole economy has developed along Mitchell Street. It is not just licensees; it is all the food outlets, etcetera, which complement each other. That is the idea of an entertainment precinct.
Like I say, the member for Nelson seems to be enlightened. This must be a great epiphany for the member for Nelson because he had four years with the previous government where he was kingmaker. He determined who would run government, who would be the Chief Minister, the terms, and what he demanded to keep the government in place. I do not recall him calling for Newcastle-style solutions in the CBD then. He had four years to get his way on anything, and not once did he stick his head above the parapet on Mitchell Street demanding the Chief Minister start closing pubs, clubs, and nightclubs early and impose draconian measures on them or he would join the CLP. Not once did I hear any talk of that. Not once did I see anything in his log of claims he put to the Labor government, which they had to meet, about trading hours of pubs along Mitchell Street. His motion today is full of self-righteousness, demanding a conscience vote like none of us have a clue, and suggesting we should penalise all Territorians for the actions of a handful. This guy is beyond a joke.
The government has a different approach to dealing with alcohol-fuelled violence and problems that can occur. We want to target the problem drunk. We are looking at ways and measures to target people – that rare breed of person who does not handle their alcohol properly and likes to fight. They are the people we are targeting, not legitimate businesses. We are not targeting people going out for a good time or everyday Territorians. We are targeting people who have a serious problem with alcohol. The member for Nelson scoffs at alcohol protection orders and mandatory treatment for drunks. None of these things matter. All we need to do is bring in Newcastle-style solutions and he will be happy.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is misleading the parliament. I did not oppose mandatory rehabilitation.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, could you please withdraw that comment.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I did not mislead parliament. I am offended by the suggestion I am misleading parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, what was your claim?
Mr WOOD: He claimed I did not support mandatory rehabilitation of drunks, which I did. You are wrong.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not hear any of that. All right, he has had another epiphany and now supports mandatory treatment of drunks. He also supported the Banned Drinker Register. The Banned Drinker Register was a great example of penalising everybody for the sake of a few.
I recall him arguing like hell about the Banned Drinker Register. ‘Why are you moving away from the Banned Drinker Register to go to a mandatory treatment model?’ He wanted the Banned Drinker Register left in place. He did not want the mandatory treatment model. Now he has decided he supports the mandatory treatment model ...
Mr Wood: You are lying.
Mr TOLLNER: You have had your go. You threw a lot of allegations around and belittled everybody out there, anybody who owns a pub …
Mr Wood: Quack, quack.
Mr TOLLNER: … and you think that is okay. Well, good on you. You are entitled to your opinion, but other people are too.
Mr Wood: Don’t make it up.
Mr TOLLNER: You seem to think we are all a pack of redneck drunks who like nothing more than breaking each other’s’ jaws. What a funny world you live in out there in Howard Springs, member for Nelson.
Before you move a motion like this you should get out once or twice and look at Mitchell Street, talk to a few licensees, maybe have a chat to a few people at the AHA.
Mr Wood: Fifty police.
Mr TOLLNER: It might be like walking through the Gates of Hell when you go to the AHA office, and you might feel like Satan’s talking to you when Doug Sallis is sitting on the other side of the table, but it is not that bad.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please address your comments through the Chair.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I got caught up in the moment. The member for Nelson was throwing wild interjections across the Chamber and I could not help myself.
The point is the member for Nelson may well feel he is walking through the Gates of Hell when he goes into the AHA. He talks about big business getting their way with everything. Goodness me, most of those publicans and licensees are not what I would call big business. They are legitimate people trying to nut out a living, often mortgaging their houses and the like to leverage their way into business without being big business. Not too many Clive Palmers own pubs along the Mitchell Street precinct.
We have a different view in government. We want to work with licensees where we recognise they run legitimate businesses and are trying to earn a profit so those businesses can grow, employ more Territorians and, hopefully, provide a service and improve the amenity and lifestyle of all Territorians. Why would you want to close down an entertainment precinct? Only the member for Nelson, who likes living in the rural area, does not like it in the city, does not like being around people, wants to live in the sticks, wants to penalise all Territorians. It is crazy.
We have tried to take a very cooperative approach with these places. We are working closely with the Australian Hotels Association and with police. The licensing agency in the Department of Business is working closely with police and businesses. Members of parliament are talking with them, as is Darwin City Council, to come up with ways we can restrict, as much as humanly possible, the bad aspects of what happens in any entertainment area anywhere in the country. Where you have alcohol there will always be a handful of people who abuse it, whether they are out in the scrub drinking two or three cartons, as some of us have seen, or whether you are in a restaurant in Darwin or Mitchell Street. There will be people who abuse the situation. That is what we, and the Australian Hotels Association, are trying to crack down on. That is what police, Darwin City Council and this government wants to see gone.
We have been working with the licensees along Mitchell Street and now have a strengthened liquor accord. A few months ago the liquor accord was not greatly supported. I said it was a rather flimsy document that did not mean much to anyone. Unless you buy into something, it is very difficult to get people to support it.
In recent weeks an enormous amount of work has taken place between the AHA, the police, licensees along Mitchell Street and agencies of government to strengthen that liquor accord. Now, 100% of late night licensees have signed up to the CBD liquor accord and have agreed to drink promotion restrictions and other proactive and responsible initiatives to ensure their venues are safe and secure for their patrons.
It must be said, some venues have been unfairly blamed for some of the problems. Whilst I am not trying to down play the problems and circumstances, I want to put on the record some events that have occurred. One was a stabbing in front of Shenannigans Irish Pub on Mitchell Street a few months ago. That occurred when several long-grassers came up from The Esplanade drunk, had a fight, and one of them stabbed the other in front of the pub. The media was very focused on Shenannigans because that is where it occurred, but the two people involved, both the perpetrator and the victim, never stepped foot inside Shenannigans Irish Pub; however, Shenannigans copped the flak for that.
More recently, a man was stabbed around Edmunds Street. That is an interesting case as well because again, the licensee – Squires was the venue – was under enormous pressure to respond to claims. My understanding of the event was a man was in the establishment and had one alcoholic drink, some said it was a beer. A fellow came in and stuck a donation into the plastic bucket for the Guide Dogs and the other fellow took offence and they had an argument. They were kicked out of the establishment. One fellow walked down the road, around the corner, and was followed by the victim. A fight ensued; one was stabbed and later died.
Both were dreadful events but, in the latter case, one fellow had not had a drink and the other fellow only one. Neither was intoxicated and the incident happened off the premises. The security at the pub acted entirely appropriately but, unfortunately, the person died. I do not want to take away from the gravity of both those events, but the suggestion that licensees are responsible for those incidents is wrong and they should not be tarred with that brush. With community outrage, people like the member for Nelson are all too ready to use the hysteria generated by those events to prosecute an argument to limit the profitability of establishments along Mitchell Street.
I note the comments of Vince Kelly, the member for Nelson and Matthew Gardiner about putting profits before people and all that nonsense. Profits can only be generated if people turn up, have a good time and the establishment is doing a job.
The fundamental of business is – this is the part lost on many people in Labor and, possibly, the member for Nelson – in owning a business you have to run at a profit. No business can operate at a loss. You have to earn a profit to pay wages and employ people, to buy stock and other things. If you run at a loss you will not be in business long. We want to see businesses being profitable in the Northern Territory. It is not in this government’s or the community’s interest for government to make decisions which make businesses unprofitable.
I am somewhat concerned about the Newcastle restrictions when I see a Crosbie Warren Sinclair report saying nine out of 14 hotels closed, changed hands or went into receivership, with an average reduction in turnover of 27.7% a week, an almost 22% reduction in revenues, a $22.5m decline in asset value, and a reduction in the hotel workforce of almost 22%. Do we really want to see those outcomes along Mitchell Street because of some falsely generated hysteria around alcohol?
I am not so nave to think there are not people who go out at night to cause trouble. I have been out enough times to know it happens. However, I have also been out enough times to realise the majority of people who go out – the tens of thousands of people along Mitchell Street every night – are there for a good time and to enjoy themselves and Territory hospitality.
The member for Nelson took the mickey out of the Chief Minister saying this is a core social value. The core social value in the Territory is freedom. It always has been. We are different here; we have greater freedoms. We are pioneers. We might think of ourselves as a sophisticated modern city, but we are a very young jurisdiction. We have had self-government since 1978. The vast majority of the Northern Territory remains undeveloped. This is somewhat of a frontier, a place where we should have more freedom than anywhere else in the country. Yet every time we come here, it seems we listen to more proposals about restricting people’s freedom, taking away their freedom and how to impose restrictions on them. The member for Nelson might be a nanny statist, but not all of us are.
I advocate for an anti-red tape day in parliament where we can identify areas where there are too many restrictions, where we can relax some laws, where we can give people freedom to act responsibly. I am not supporting this motion and doubt the government will. I am not aware a conscience vote has been called for, apart from the member for Nelson, who wants a conscience vote because he believes we have all been brainwashed by the AHA and are all puppets of the big business mob in the AHA. The man is seriously deluded in that regard. He believes in aliens.
There was a story in the paper recently about being abducted by aliens. He is quite happy to live the dream that we are all a pack of rednecks who do not care about anything, but that is far from the truth.
I urge the House to ignore this motion from the member for Nelson.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I welcome this motion from the member for Nelson. The recent violent crime in Mitchell Street has shocked us all. We know alcohol violence occurs but that does not stop us, as a community, being shocked when a tragedy takes place. The death of any 27-year old is tragic, but the manner of Josh Spicer’s death – stabbed in the CBD – is unbelievably senseless. We need to debate motions and topics like this, and have done that every sitting.
I am not pretending violence in Mitchell Street and the CBD precinct is new, and Mitchell Street is not the only place in the Territory, Australia, or the world prone to alcohol violence. However, this is our town and I believe the sentiment in this town right now is we will not tolerate stabbings. We are not that city. Darwin is not that place, and we will not let it become that place, which is why debating this motion is important. It is not just the specifics of the motion, but the topic as a whole. It is important to point out that we would not be having this debate if the CLP had not broken their election commitment. The CLP promised to cut crime by 10% in their first year, and every year. It was a firm commitment in the television advertisements, policy papers, and in their signed contract with Territorians. The results are in. They have failed; Adam Giles has failed.
In the last year, violent crime has risen by over 10% across the Territory. This is not a problem isolated to Mitchell Street. In the Northern Territory we are experiencing the highest levels of assault in our history. In Darwin the statistics are clear: in the June quarter last year there were 386 assaults; in the June quarter this year there were 445, an increase of over 15%. The CLP promised to bring crime down by 10%. Violent crime is up in Darwin by 15% under the CLP, and it is not just comparing one quarter with another.
The number of assaults in Darwin last year is the highest ever at 1630. That does not include Palmerston, which has also had the highest number of assaults over the last 12 months. In the lead up to the 2008 election, the CLP complained that assaults in Alice Springs were too high. Assaults in Alice Springs were 60% higher in the last year under the failed policies of the current CLP than in 2008. That is their failure. The CLP’s broken commitment – their broken contract is the reason we are having this debate.
If they had succeeded in cutting violent crime by 10% we would not be debating how to reduce the increase in violent crime, and that is the crux of this debate. Violent crime is increasing so what can we do about it? As mentioned, under the CLP violent crime is rising across the Territory. This problem is not isolated to Mitchell Street. The majority of alcohol violence comes from takeaway sales, not on-premise drinking. This has been the case for a long time and the police have made that clear on numerous occasions. Mitchell Street is not the only place to experience violent crime.
The CLP’s failure to cut violent crime is, of course, clearly linked to its failed alcohol policies. The experts told them their policies were wrong and would not work. The experts were right, the CLP was wrong. There is no doubt a violent crime in Mitchell Street attracts more attention than it would elsewhere. With CCTV and the iconic nature of the precinct, a stabbing death in Mitchell Street draws far greater attention in both media and public debate than say in an Alice Springs town camp. I am not blaming anyone for that, but it is a fact.
The previous Martin and Henderson governments had a proud history of tackling alcohol abuse across the Territory, from ID systems in Alice Springs, Groote and Gove, alcohol management plans in communities, alcohol courts and tribunals, mandatory treatment, income management and, of course, the Banned Drinker Register to name a few of our initiatives.
Alcohol policy is a content-rich area. Many things on both the supply and demand side can be implemented. There is much to talk about on all these issues, although I will focus on the ones specific to Mitchell Street.
In relation to Mitchell Street, we implemented many initiatives and laws directly targeting the precinct. These included precinct bans, banning troublemakers from the area, the CitySafe Unit policing agenda, and more police on the streets and in venues. We worked with industry to buy glasses which cannot be used as weapons. We provided safe taxi ranks and included transport options. We installed and monitored CCTV and targeted drugs with tough new laws. We increased sentences for aggravated assault and introduced laws targeting gangs and bikies. We backed the industry liquor accord with reforms such as ID systems and service protocols. We supported and legislated for the responsible service of alcohol laws. Most importantly, we worked with industry. Quite simply, a reform with the backing of industry will work better. After all, we all want the same thing. Industry does not want the violence because, like the rest of us they abhor violence, but also because violence is bad for business. From a purely commercial point of view, increasing violence is a disaster for industry.
Some people may suggest I am overstating it, but some of the alcohol reforms implemented by the previous government were some of the more courageous policy decisions by recent governments in Australia. At the time we brought in the Banned Drinker Register, there were some in the community opposed to handing over their licence to purchase alcohol. They saw it as an invasion of privacy, an inconvenience, a Big Brother initiative – punishing the majority for the sake of a few. The CLP saw that and opposed it from the start. We copped front page of the paper saying, ‘Licence to Drink’. However, we went ahead and people warmed to it. They saw it worked. Handing over your licence was a small price to pay and not much of an inconvenience at all. The community now, broadly, wants it back. It was a policy of leadership and conviction.
This might sound strange, but the success of the previous government was that we were not afraid to change our mind. Over 11 years, of course we changed our minds on issues; we were continually reforming. To implement a reform you had not implemented previously is essentially changing your mind. We were continually working to solve issues as they emerged. For example, at one stage we were opposed to showing your ID to purchase alcohol in Darwin. We had an ID system in place in Alice Springs and, quite reasonably, we were often asked, ‘Why not in Darwin?’ We defended our position on the basis of the different nature of problems in the towns.
There was legitimate reasoning, but as we listened to experts, as technology evolved, and as specific problems, issues and trends emerged, we reacted. We changed our mind in relation to showing ID in Darwin, and we brought in the Banned Drinker Register. That is what good governments do. They react with soundly researched policy, developed in consultation with experts and industry. We listened to police, judges and doctors. We acted, and we worked with industry to ensure the policy worked. Importantly, we also assessed how changes to alcohol policy would affect everyone. The majority of us drink responsibly. We always assessed how we could ensure that the measures targeted problem drinkers and the impacts on responsible drinkers were minimised.
Of course, some of our reforms impacted on everyone, but we made an assessment. Would an inconvenience, such as showing your licence, be a small price to pay for targeting the problems and limiting the violence? That was our approach. Respond and react to issues, and have an open mind. Listen to the experts; listen to those dealing with the problem on a daily basis. Work with industry, target the problem, and minimise the impact on others.
We now have a debacle. We have promises from the Chief Minister of drastic action backed up by nothing. Police are gagged from talking about the Banned Drinker Register. Experts offering their advice are told to piss off. The CLP promises mandatory drug testing for people involved in violence but it is not implemented. The CLP’s approach to alcohol is arrogant, ill-conceived and a failure. Labor’s ongoing reform to alcohol will continue. Our policy agenda as a party did not stop on 25 August last year when we lost government.
Some people may criticise us if we offer a policy idea saying, ‘Why didn’t you do that when you were in government?’ It is a fair point, but the answer is simple: we constantly made reforms in government and will continue to advocate for reforms from opposition. As we listen to experts and as issues emerge, we will develop policy in a collaborative manner directly targeted at solutions.
The CLP cut off many of our reforms; not just the Banned Drinker Register. It was remarkable to hear the Minster for Alcohol Rehabilitation say last week they could now implement income management for problem drinkers. The CLP scrapped that a year ago when they scrapped the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. It was in place; they scrapped it. They have brought it back and put up the ‘please applause now’ sign. It was wrong to scrap it in the first place. Their decision to scrap it is, undoubtedly, partly to blame for the increase in problems we have experienced over the last year.
We now see alcohol protection order plans, banning people but not enforcing them. This policy is implemented when you know the Banned Drinker Register worked but are too arrogant to admit it.
The GPS solution is ill-conceived and will be a costly failure. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, in relation to the Banned Drinker Register, she preferred a fence at the top of the cliff to an ambulance at the bottom. Whatever you thought of Julia Gillard it was a good quote.
This is exactly what the CLP is doing with the alcohol protection orders. Rather than stopping the sale, they want to catch people after the sale. It is setting people up to fail. If they can walk into a bottle shop and buy alcohol and get away with it, it is a failed scheme. There is nothing to stop them. The bottle shop owner cannot know they are banned. Only later will their actions be criminalised if they are caught. I will quote from Russell Goldflam from the Criminal Lawyers Association who, when talking about the impact of the alcohol protection orders, said banned drinkers will be set up like:
- … little black ducks in a shooting gallery …
to be locked up for breaching their order. The CLP criticised the Criminal Lawyers claiming they profit from crime. It is an offensive suggestion and simply wrong. If that were the case they would be supportive of the move to criminalise alcohol because it would mean more business. They are not because they know these laws will fail.
Madam Speaker, I now go to the content of the motion from the member for Nelson. This motion suggests the government should introduce changes similar to the measures introduced in Newcastle. He does not specifically mention it in the motion, but one of the measures he is referring to, the main one, is a lockout.
The first point to make clear is the Newcastle changes were a suite of measures, not just a lockout. I will talk more about that soon. Some of the other measures, such as secure taxi ranks, have already been implemented in Darwin. I will briefly discuss the pros and cons of a lockout and the different shapes and sizes. The Newcastle model is the one referred to most often, but lockouts have been implemented in a range of forms in a variety of places.
The first part of the lockout is important. If there are fewer people in the pub, if the nightclub closes earlier, then less alcohol is sold and consumed. The counter argument is you may simply be dispersing the problem. Chances are a young person out on the town wants to keep partying after 1 am or 3 am. They may not go home to bed as a result of a lockout. The statistics the member for Nelson quoted are impressive. He says alcohol-related non-domestic assaults went down by 33% over the last five years. That may be the case in the CBD area of Newcastle, and may be the case for non-domestic assaults, but was the problem moved rather than reduced? Pubs and clubs are not always perfect, but are a far more controlled environment for drinking than parks or homes. There are CCTV cameras, crowd controllers, and there are penalties in place for the irresponsible service of alcohol to an intoxicated patron.
In Darwin, if our clubs closed earlier the drinking would become more dispersed and harder to police. I do not know what the dispersion result was in Newcastle, but being in the Hunter Valley it is not too far from other drinking precincts on the central coast of New South Wales. Did this dispersion occur? Was there a greater uptake in uncontrolled events where alcohol was served at house or underground parties? Was there an increase in assaults in other areas?
Another factor is that the lockout is one of a suite of measures. People from Newcastle who do not necessarily oppose the lockout also point to a change in public transport. It was easier for people to get out of the city. That included safe taxi ranks staffed by security guards until late into the night. We have already done that in Darwin, supported by police, the pubs and clubs and taxi drivers. It worked in Newcastle and has worked here. There was also, apparently, a significant change in policing in Newcastle, also in the drug trade. There was a coincidental drop in the use of methamphetamines such as ice, which can often lead to violence.
I accept that the Newcastle reforms, including the lockout, have been successful in Newcastle. I accept they have broad support from the police and the community in Newcastle. I accept it worked for Newcastle. However, there have been lockouts in other cities that have not had the same success or support.
In May 2008, in response to a recent spate of CBD violence, Victorian Premier John Brumby, announced a lockout in the Melbourne CBD precinct. The lockout was dropped after three months with little outcry. While I am not saying there was not opposition to it being dropped, it went away quietly. It certainly did not have the broad support the Newcastle one has.
Other lockouts in various forms have been implemented around the country in places like the Gold Coast, Bendigo, Hobart, and Glenelg to name a few. Each lockout is different, and each one has been developed to accommodate the specifics of the location and community.
As I mentioned, lockouts come in different shapes and sizes. They can be legislated unilaterally. A condition of licence for a particular venue is voluntary – either venue specific or part of the liquor accord we have in Darwin. With the condition of licence model, for example, a lockout could be enforced upon a licence based on a decision of the Liquor Commission if repeated incidents or breaches were occurring. The action is taken as a result of poor management. This can be done on a temporary or permanent basis.
Lockouts can involve staged closures, avoiding a sudden influx of people onto the street. Lockouts can be managed with public transport. Some places provide dedicated buses or extra taxis coordinated to synchronise with staged lockouts. We have lockouts in Darwin.
This motion suggests we do in Darwin what works in Newcastle. On some levels, our towns may be similar: in size, we both have a military presence, and Newcastle has a long-established mining industry while we have an emerging gas industry. However, Darwin and Newcastle are very different places.
I will start with a difference which may offend our Newcastle friends, or Novocastrians, as they are called. Two years ago, Darwin was named by Lonely Planet as one of the top 10 cities in the world to visit. I am sure, but correct me if I am wrong, Newcastle has not made that list. Darwin is a city with a huge focus on tourism. The tourism and hospitality industries are amongst our biggest employers. An aspect of that tourism entertainment product is our vibrant nightlife.
Despite our comparatively low population, Darwin is an international city, more so than Newcastle, and 99% of the people in our Mitchell Street nightclubs early in the morning are having a great time and are not fighting. The word spreads, ‘Make sure you go to Darwin, it’s a great town’. Will a lockout compromise this? It depends on how it is done, but it must be assessed. We have lockouts already in Darwin. It can be easy to be a wowser about this. I do not go to bars and nightclubs until the early hours any longer, but I did when I was younger, not that I like to think I am old.
The average age of this parliament is well beyond the average age of the Territory. It is well above the average adult age of the Northern Territory, for most of us. That is not a bad thing, experience is good. However, we have to be careful about introducing laws preventing young people doing what we once did. Stopping violence is essential; stopping young people having a great time out must be avoided.
For example, the Newcastle model involves no shots after 10 pm. Is 10 pm right for Darwin? Would midnight work better? Maybe industry would embrace that. Under the Newcastle model, there is no entry after 1.30 pm. As part of our current liquor accord, some venues have voluntary lockouts. Perhaps some aspects of this accord could become legislation, and the minister has floated that idea. For example, currently a person evicted from one venue can be barred entry from others as part of the accord. It may be easier for pubs and clubs to enforce this with a legislative backing rather than just an accord. The legislation can work with identification technology to mandate privacy provisions and ensure the system is not misused.
I note there are currently search provisions for police in relation to knives. You could declare Mitchell Street a knife-free precinct at night. There is no reason to be carrying a knife in Mitchell Street at night. Declaring the precinct knife-free and promoting the consequences of carrying a knife would help discourage people from carrying them. We could look at these things.
I support the intent of this motion. I cannot support its explicit statement that the Newcastle model be introduced into Darwin. This does not provide an analysis of what would work in Darwin. It does not provide for experts, police, and lawyers to assess our complementary laws and practices and implement a scheme. It does not accord with the successful approach of the former Martin and Henderson governments to work with experts and industry and get their buy-in. It does not provide for consultation. I fully support looking at what is happening around the country and seeing what works for Darwin, but this motion says pick up what works in Newcastle and do it here. I cannot support that.
I will support an approach which involves looking at options around the country broadly and acting to improve the Territory, because it is not a problem isolated to the Mitchell Street precinct. I support – the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about this in the past – a bipartisan parliamentary committee which looks at broad alcohol issues. It could visit Newcastle and other precincts to see what worked and what did not. We have issues much broader than Mitchell Street. We could involve local members of the AHA, police, Vince Kelly, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, paramedics, even journalists. We should look at it and work on the issue together.
I note the commentary from some that to oppose Newcastle reforms is to be in bed with the AHA. I do not accept this. Working with industry is important. I believe police, industry, council, and government working in sync to prevent violence is the best way forward.
In my dealings with AHA, they are not opposed to reform as long as they get a hearing into the logistics of it and the reality of it on the ground. Some of the ideas implemented in Mitchell Street have come at the suggestion of AHA members.
Drinking glasses that shatter or break in such a way they cannot be used as weapons come to mind. These ideas come forward when you work in cooperation. A reform with the industry on board will always work better than one which does not take into account suggestions and concerns of industry. This is not just specific to the AHA, but any industry body and any reform process.
In relation to increasing violence, we must act. We must make a stand, and I commend this motion for the stand it makes. I support its intent. The motion strongly reflects the views of the people of Darwin; they want us to take a stand. They do not want to talk of drastic action, they want action that works.
I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion forward and allowing us to have the debate. His motives to curb the increase of alcohol-related violence are pure and admirable.
As shadow minister for Alcohol Policy, I confirm we endorse the intent of the motion to tackle alcohol abuse but believe this is a problem across the Northern Territory. We will never put politics ahead of taking action to combat alcohol-related violence. We did that in government, and it is what we will do in opposition. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, when there is public alarm at incidents which have taken place, for example, earlier this month in Darwin CBD, strong leadership is required to balance the facts and the advice of the authorities. This includes the Northern Territory Police, and licensing, against the media coverage and emotions such incidents engender.
I am deeply saddened by the recent needless loss of life, and I extend my sympathies to the family of Mr Spicer.
The member for Nelson has specifically referred to measures contained within the alcohol management strategy for the city of Newcastle. The background is a Newcastle council resolution of 18 August 2009 requested such a strategy and mandated restrictions were introduced effective from February 2011. The reason for the very grave concern in Newcastle was because between 2003 and 2008 the prevalence of alcohol-related crime increased significantly.
Assaults attended by police increased by 83%, with up to 65% relating to licensed premises, and the number of police callouts to hotels in the Newcastle entertainment precinct increased by more than 70%.
An analysis of crime data relating to Darwin, specifically the number of assaults occurring in the Mitchell Street precinct, has been undertaken by Northern Territory Police. The results show during the period 1 July to 30 September 2012 there were 51 recorded assaults and, during the corresponding period this year there were 52 assaults – almost no difference at all.
One of the components of the Newcastle initiative was the introduction of closed circuit TV cameras, or CCTV. Those visiting Darwin should rest assured CCTVs have been operating here for four years and have been integral to the policing strategies around antisocial behaviour and associated violence. The Territory CCTV system consists of 161 cameras which are monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
From 1 May 2013 to 14 October 2013, the CCTV unit monitored more than 1310 incidents in Darwin, Palmerston, Parap, and Alice Springs, including looking at 114 liquor or drunks, 102 fights, 231 general disturbances and 56 assaults.
Mitchell Street alone has 13 CCTV cameras. I table a copy of the map of those cameras in Mitchell Street.
In addition, all licensed premises, with the exception of restaurants, have the installation and maintenance of security cameras mandated within their licence conditions.
It is important to note the Chairman’s message in the Northern Territory Licensing Commission’s 2012-13 Annual Report. I quote:
- The trend towards increased liquor Licensee compliance with license conditions and the Liquor Act has resulted in no complaints being referred to the Licensing Commission for alleged breaches in 2012-13. Over the past three years the number of complaints referred to the Commission for Hearing has declined from 29 in 2010-11, 13 in 2011-12 and nil in this reporting year.
Let me repeat that: nil complaints this reporting year.
This is fact. Cast your mind back to my reference to earlier statistics: 51 in that time frame and 52 in the corresponding time frame this year. I thank the Australian Hotels Association NT, the AHA, and their members for demonstrating their commitment to running responsible venues.
Let us look at the current situation regarding trading hours in Darwin CBD. Of the 16 premises, half are licenced to 2 am and half licenced to 4 am. The staggered closing hours have the purpose of ensuring there is no mass exodus onto Mitchell Street. All liquor licences which allow for trading after 3 am enforce the lockout of patrons. This means no new patrons are allowed to enter after 3 am, and those who seek to leave are not allowed to re-enter.
On 11 October 2013, a few days ago, the AHA unanimously reconfirmed its commitment to the Darwin CBD accord. This accord is in place between all Darwin CBD’s licensees, the police and licensing. The purpose is to ensure Darwin has a vibrant, safe entertainment precinct for locals and visitors to enjoy. Regular meetings address initiatives, management and issues that arise. The accord’s objectives include zero tolerance towards antisocial and violent behaviour, the responsible service of alcohol, ensuring safety and security within the licenced premises as well as, as far as reasonably practicable, outside the licenced venue, and improving the general amenity of Darwin.
I commend the AHA for its commitment to this accord. I also encourage continued debate about ways to strengthen it into the future. I had the opportunity yesterday of meeting the head of the AHA and spoke in depth about the accord and how the recent reconfirmation by all premises in Mitchell Street precinct that they sign the accord, and all remain committed to a safe and secure environment is a very positive outcome. It is great to see the private sector working together to ensure the safety of Territorians.
The drinking scene across Australia changes with the years and new trends. There are patrons who view total intoxication as proof of a good night out. The research project undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the Newcastle initiative noted that the increasingly common practice of drinking at home before hitting the nightclubs is the major predictor of people experiencing harm and violence. A further fact is drug use, which can lead to a greater experience of violence and harm.
As an aside, I thank the opposition and the member for Nelson for their support this week of our introduction of tougher penalties for methamphetamine offences.
It is important to have the right mix of alcohol management across the Northern Territory which considers sale and availability, outlets and their locations, conditions of operations and track record. The recent incident in Darwin involved three chaps having a beer after work. It had nothing to do with late night trading, but a fight that lead to a fatality on the street.
The member for Nelson has specifically mentioned measures introduced in Newcastle. Let me emphasise that many cities have researched safe city strategies which respond to the requirements of their communities. In Western Australia, the city of Gosnell has adopted a new alcohol policy. In the city of Wellington, New Zealand, their alcohol management strategy followed on from a community engagement program which considered issues including how alcohol can positively contribute to our aspiration for a dynamic central city, and how we can all play a part in reducing alcohol-related harm. Other major urban centres seek to put in place initiatives similar to those we see in Darwin, including establishing an entertainment precinct for late night activity in the central area, and creating a two-tiered maximum trading hour system with staggered closure times.
We are well aware of the strategies in place and proposed in other locations. Their results, and subsequent effects, are monitored. Questions are asked about the anomalies, such as why no other city in New South Wales has rolled out a Newcastle copycat strategy. Questions about the displacement effects, that is, where have the problems moved to? We acknowledge there are serious issues nationwide around heavy drinking, especially in the younger demographic. The destructive cycle of drinking affects our urban areas as well as our remote communities.
Member for Nelson, within your electorate the rural area has seen incidents over recent years where teenagers at alcohol-fuelled gatherings has led to uncontrolled misbehaviour in completely unregulated environments. That is why the Country Liberals government has a suite of measures to combat the problem, tools such as the new system of alcohol protection orders which were launched today. They are designed to help police in their fight against alcohol-related crime.
Under this legislation, an adult who is charged with committing a serious offence under the influence of alcohol can be issued with an order banning them from consuming or possessing alcohol or going to any licensed premises. Once again, I stress that individuals must take responsibility for their behaviour.
Madam Speaker, we have to keep the issue clear of emotion and headline grabs. There has to be a balance between a dynamic city centre and public expectation of safety. We want to see the promotion of Darwin as a destination for the celebration of lifestyle, tourism, business and sporting events rather than excess alcohol consumption. That is why the current Darwin CBD Master Plan Project is a timely undertaking. The project has been funded in cooperation with the City of Darwin and the Territory and Australian governments, and will produce a blueprint for Darwin’s growth over the next 20 years.
In order for the strategies to be comprehensive and integrated there has been a heavy engagement with the community. A total of 106 workshops have been held with discussions on many facets of how the city functions, including public safety, licensed premises and the entertainment precinct.
I have a briefing on Friday at the City of Darwin before the public draft document is released on Tuesday 22 October. The vision is for a sustainable, productive and liveable capital city. The entertainment precinct in Darwin CBD provides widespread employment. It provides venues of choice for patrons of all ages, from those who have enjoyed an evening at the Entertainment Centre and want to party on, business people here for meetings and major conferences, tourists visiting the Territory, to the younger demographic wanting to spend their pay as swiftly as they have received it.
This government is responsible and has a vision of framing the future for a strong society which wants an individual’s right to freedom and is safe for all.
Once again I emphasise, with no apology, that all members of the community must show a level of responsibility for themselves. Member for Nelson, be assured this is an issue we take very seriously. The government is sending a clear message that we expect appropriate behaviour, but if antisocial behaviour continues we may have to consider other measures.
I reflect on some of the statistical dot points I referred to earlier, that being there has not been a substantial change – one assault in the time frame I referred to earlier – between the former Labor government and our government. However, we are prepared to talk tough and send a clear message to the community that we believe there should be stronger expectations by elements of our community – a very small minority that likes to cause trouble.
Last week during Question Time I spoke about drugs on our street and the importance of police and drug dogs undertaking a greater role, particularly around the CBD, to ensure drugs are not in licensed premises. It is not only alcohol that is a problem; my information is drugs are a significant problem.
Last week Operation Omaha had 50 officers on the beat providing a safe environment with a very positive outcome. The numbers were much smaller than I expected for arrests and people going into protective custody, and some of those were around drink-driving. That level of activity shows a positive outcome and sends a message for the next time police are out there. We have asked police for a more intensive effort over a longer period of time to ensure that clear message is sent.
I have also asked if the Police Commissioner can see if dogs can be used more frequently, albeit as per police operational requirements, with a specific focus on targeting drugs in nightclubs. I hear from police, ambulance officers, fire officers, licensees and people on the accord that drugs and the effect they have on people are a serious concern late at night.
I do not want to categorise or generalise too much, but you hear stories about five foot tall slender young women with the strength of 10 men at the end of the night because of the drugs they have allegedly taken. They create a serious concern for not only law enforcement officers or ambulance officers, but licensees, patrons in clubs, and people on the street. That is a specific area we need to focus on, and I have asked the Police Commissioner to have a serious look at it.
Operation Omaha will continue this weekend. We would like to think the minority which causes trouble is off the street. We will continue to send a clear message. I do fear putting in tougher measures but only if we need them. If police, people like me, and community leaders in this Chamber and outside send that message and ensure there is a safe environment, it creates satisfaction for people who want to frequent these premises, and parents can feel a greater sense of security when their 20-year old child has a good night out in what they believe is a safe environment.
I understand the challenges. I understand it is popular to talk about the situation in the CBD and Mitchell Street. However, the numbers, statistically, have not changed over the reference point I provided. We can continue to beat the drum and send a clear message it will not be tolerated, ensure there are adequate police operations, ensure we have a strong regulatory environment and work positively with licensed venues and the alcohol accord. It was great this week to see all licensed premises have signed up to the accord and are taking a zero tolerance approach.
I congratulate the AHA on getting everybody together. I look forward to working with the AHA and the accord. Both the minister and the government look forward to that. It is not just about Mitchell Street, the CBD, or Darwin; it is across the Territory. It is difficult to provide a regulatory environment for different, vast landscapes and circumstances across the Northern Territory, but I believe we are doing quite well.
We need improvements in certain areas. I am sure the Minister for Alcohol Policy is looking at the Licensing Act to see what improvements can be made to ensure greater levels of regulatory support. This issue will remain on our minds.
Madam Speaker, we accept the intent of the motion but will not be supporting it. However, we will continue to work with the community and the all-important stakeholders to ensure a safe environment is provided. Thank you, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, although I do not agree, I thank the Chief Minister for his point of view and for giving me the courtesy of listening to my arguments. I also thank the leader of opposition business. I cannot quite say the same for the Minister for Alcohol Policy’s speech, which I considered a rant, unfortunately.
I will take up some of the issues raised but they may not be in any order. Both the Chief Minister and the member for Fannie Bay were concerned that in the Newcastle experiment they did not know what effect it had on neighbouring suburbs. The neighbouring suburb is Hamilton, and I can give him some statistics from the New South Wales Bureau of Crimes Statistics which said:
- Recorded crime and Linking data revealed a significant reduction in alcohol-related assaults in the intervention site but not the comparison site. These two data sources revealed no evidence of any geographic displacement of assaults to other licensed premises or neighbouring areas.
I highlight that because the member for Fannie Bay said there would be a drift elsewhere. I also presumed, except perhaps for the casino, our more local alcohol establishments would not have the same hours of operation as those in the CBD.
At the start of my speech I said this was bigger than just Mitchell Street; this is an issue for the entire Territory. There was not enough time in this debate to deal with the broader issues. However, we know the effects alcohol has on domestic violence, deaths on our roads, violence in general, sickness in our community and premature death from excessive use of alcohol. It is not about what the member for Fong Lim tried to do, as he always does – me being a wowser or wanting to spoil everyone’s good fun.
This issue is not about closing down Mitchell Street or telling hoteliers and licensees they cannot run their businesses. This is saying we need controls because we have evidence that if there are changes you will get a 33% reduction in alcohol-fuelled assaults and a 26% reduction in emergency department admissions. Of course, those percentages may not be the same, but that is the benefit of these changes.
The member for Fong Lim quoted from a report by Crosbie Warren Sinclair. Tonight I produced statistics which were independently assessed and freely available to anyone from Professor Peter Miller of Deakin University and Professor John Wiggers, University of Newcastle. They scrutinised and independently assessed the results of this change in the CBD of Newcastle. The member for Fong Lim quoted from a report which has never been released to the public. There were two reports, neither of which had been given to anyone for independent scrutiny. As far as I know, they were paid for by the AHA. They should be checked by an independent body, like a university, but that was not allowed. The documents he quoted from cannot be used to validate what he is talking about.
In fact, as I said in my opening speech, it has been shown – these figures have come through the research – increase in the total number of licensed premises is 20, including restaurants and small bars in Newcastle CBD, and an increase in sustainable business diversity away from the late trade binge bars. There was an improvement in the night economy. In Newcastle the economy has not gone backwards; people have returned to the CBD because it is a safer place.
What family would want to go Mitchell Street these days? It used to be popular, with Hog’s Breath Cafe, the cinema, pizza parlours, but now it tends to be drowned by licensed premises and more money is being invested. All the pubs are still open. One burnt down and one closed down then started up again.
The information the member for Fong Lim provided cannot stand up to scrutiny. Tonight I have tried to provide backing to the issues. The member for Fannie Bay said, ‘Newcastle will not apply anywhere else’. The Queensland Attorney-General said he is considering a 1 am lockdown and 3 am close. Christchurch, a long way from Newcastle, is talking about a 1 am lockdown and 3 am close.
We are not talking about lockdowns alone, and the member for Fannie Bay quoted places where it had failed. However, Professor Miller from Deakin University found in some cities reliance on a lockout curfew alone without a reduction in late closing times increased the level of alcohol-fuelled assaults. The Newcastle direction ensured the two worked together. I find it hard to answer some of the member for Fong Lim’s comments, especially when he started by saying this is harebrained. I do not care if people think I am a wowser or do not know what I am talking about.
About a year-and-a-half ago I toured every bar in Mitchell Street with the AHA, so I know what they look like; I know the places. I might be old, but I visited them. I finished at midnight. I would love to know what time the Chief Minister finished the other night, because he had his picture in the paper. Obviously, he was not there at 4 am.
I spoke to two mounted police the night I was there and they said, ‘If you want to see action, come back after 3 am or 4 am when they shut down’. We cover it over with smooth talk, but it is not so. It is sad you throw that stuff at me. All I wanted to say is, ‘Yes, young people can have a good time in Mitchell Street but start a little earlier’. How many of us complain about kids drinking before they head off to the Mitchell Street precinct? That issue has been dropped, binge drinking has been dropped. One of the surveyors from the university said he could find people in Newcastle at 9 pm, but could not find them in Wollongong at 11.30 pm. People came out a little earlier and still had plenty of time to drink, you just brought the closing time back.
Professor Miller was not only looking at Newcastle. He looked at Wollongong and Geelong, a fair distance apart. He said for every hour you reduce closing time you get a 20% reduction in assaults. I provided evidence that bringing back lockdown times and bringing back closing times makes a difference. I say to the people in the alcohol industry it is not about shutting them down. It is about using the evidence analysed from the Newcastle direction: if you make these changes you will reduce alcohol-fuelled assaults and the pressure at our hospitals, and on our nurses, doctors, surgeons and paramedics. That does not make me a wowser. I hope that shows I care about people on the front line and about young people, especially if we can reduce their binge drinking. They can still have a good time; we have not said they should not go to Mitchell Street.
To be told I am talking rubbish, to accuse Vince Kelly of making statements on behalf of the Police Association because he was a failed Labor candidate – give me a break. There would be several hundred failed Labor candidates around the country. Is that a scourge that from now on one should never speak independently? He represents the Northern Territory Police Association. If they consider him not worthy of speaking on behalf of them because he is a failed Labor candidate they would have got rid of him years ago. He told the truth, and I support what he says.
What we have today is wrong. The member for Fannie Bay said we are a different city, a tourist city. I spent time in Newcastle and it is a surfing town. Some of the old rock and roll songs come out of Newcastle …
A member: Chisel.
Mr WOOD: That is right. Many young people visit Newcastle. It might be a coal city, but it is a young person’s town as well. It has some nice hotels. It is not the Newcastle of 30 years ago; it is a vibrant city. They introduced changes which have not been to the detriment of Newcastle. I recommend that people look at the figures. If you want, ring Professor John Wiggers at the University of Newcastle, who spoke to me recently about work he has done. You could talk to Professor Miller at Deakin University. Do not rely on me because I am not the expert, even though the member for Fong Lim says – I do not worry too much, but I become his object of fun when trying to relay the position of learned people on this matter.
The member for Fong Lim throws red herrings in everywhere. I did not mention the two murders in Mitchell Street. The Chief Minister in his answer to a question last week from the member for Drysdale mentioned them. I did not mention it so I wonder why people say these things. The member for Fong Lim says all the people I quoted want prohibition. Where does that evidence come from? If we are working on evidence, can he get a statutory declaration from Vince Kelly, Matthew Gardiner, Yvonne Falckh, Bill Carlson and Peter Beaumont saying they want prohibition? I will be blowed if they do!
Does this add to an argument about a serious issue? The Minister for Alcohol Policy should resign that portfolio and give it to the Chief Minister. Even if I did not agree with the Chief Minister, at least he had a reasoned argument; I was not called a wowser and people were not called prohibitionists. People cannot respect what is coming from the Minister for Alcohol Policy because as you said, it is not just about Mitchell Street, there are other issues. If he worries about me being passionate – I do not drink because I have seen the tragedy of alcohol in Aboriginal communities, especially Daly River, where there were 30 kids in the dormitory and half were dead before 21, all from the effects of alcohol. They were murdered, run over, bashed, stabbed, you name it.
I have concerns about where society is going for all people, black or white, but that does not mean I am a wowser. My kids all drink; they love a wine. They get the giggles and you cannot shut them up, but there is drinking and there is drinking.
We should be concerned when we see pictures from down south. I reckon we will see similar pictures here of paramedics trying to pick up people who have been affected by alcohol and drugs.
The AHA told me drugs are a problem. Imagine if you were on ice. We spoke about ice and its effects. People become excessively aggressive. I have seen some of the 24-hour emergency shows from England, also from New South Wales, where people have to be strapped down and held because they are violent. We should be concerned about these people and how we can change that so nurses and doctors help sick people, not those who need help because they were belted by their mate who was over the moon.
They are the issues we should be concentrating on. How many important facilities are being wasted because we have people who cannot take responsibility and because we have problems with alcohol in our society?
In summing up, when I know the Queensland Attorney-General is considering changing closing times in Queensland to 1 am and 3 am, I say to the CLP, ‘You have a how’s your aunty Liberal National Party in good old Queensland’. It is a free-for-all in some places. They are looking at seven casinos. For the Attorney-General of Queensland to say, ‘We have some issues and we ought to look at changing lockouts and closing times’, does that make him a wowser? I do not think so. It makes him a politician willing to look at change he has seen in Newcastle.
I did not want to browbeat the member for Fong Lim to force my code of conduct on the rest of the world. I want to reflect on what other people are saying, such as the Last Drinks Campaign. By the way, other towns in New South Wales are looking at similar things and are having trouble because of the AHA. It is a very powerful lobby group in New South Wales. From the figures I saw, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to political parties.
Byron Bay is looking at last drinks at midnight because of the problems they have. They have adjusted them, but they will be using similar ideas to the Newcastle direction. You say you cannot apply the Newcastle conditions to Darwin. However, you could have a trial. You are not asking people to close down. You could have a two-year trial and get an independent body to come in, like Deakin University or the University of Newcastle. Get someone else to see what effect it has over that period. You would need some advice on the length of the trial to see how effective it would be.
We cannot say, as the Chief Minister said in answer to questions recently, ‘Things are not worse, but they are not better’ after saying we had 50 police last Friday, Saturday, and Sunday in the CBD and another 50 this weekend. If Mitchell Street is fine, why do you have Operation Omaha invading the beaches of the CBD? That shows there is something wrong.
Madam Speaker, I thank everybody for their contributions tonight. I put this forward as a serious debate because we need to tackle the problem, not because of media hype, but because of what is happening all over the Territory.
Once again, I thank members for their contribution. I thank all those people in Newcastle and Darwin who gave me the information I put forward tonight. I did my best but, as many people say, the battle might not be won, but there is time to look at this issue in the future. We will not leave it alone. It is an important issue we will continue to focus on.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 1 Noes 23
Mr Wood Ms Anderson
Mr Chandler
Mr Conlan
Mr Elferink
Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Fyles
Mr Giles
Mr Gunner
Mr Higgins
Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lawrie
Ms Lee
Mr McCarthy
Ms Manison
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Vowles
Ms Walker
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Proposed Planning Act Amendments
Proposed Planning Act Amendments
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the NT government consider changes to the NT Planning Act or NT Planning Scheme to require that, where residential land, including rural residential land affected by seepage, flooding or tidal surge, a line – even if approximate – should be shown on the registered title map for that land.
This is a fairly simple motion, and I hope it gets support because I have asked the government to consider this change. It is, I believe, a sensible change.
I brought it forward because people will remember that over the last few years I have had concerns about some blocks of land in the Herbert area that were flooded. They are not the only blocks, by the way. They were flooded because information about the blocks was incorrect.
There are also blocks in Howard Springs which are flooded, some historical, some recent. The problem is it is very difficult to get information about a block of land and find out if there are wet areas on it. Presently, you can go to the Planning department and they will tell you to look at water logging maps. Those maps are on such a large scale that any chance of saying they are accurate to 50 m would be impossible. In fact, a lady came to see me some time ago from, perhaps Humpty Doo. She bought a block that I knew went underwater, but she was new to the area and did not speak to me. She went to the department and was told ‘Here is the map. No, it is all right.’ I know that block goes completely underwater because the block next door goes three quarters underwater. The bloke paid $200 000 and that Wet Season found he had thrown his money away. That block is then sold off to another person, and they have the same problem.
Under the existing planning laws if you are subdividing land – the minister might check this because it could apply in urban areas, especially Rapid Creek or in a tidal surge zone, but it would probably apply to new subdivisions in the rural area – there is nothing to say you cannot subdivide land with some wet areas on it. Generally, if the areas are of significance they are taken out of the subdivision. However, people can buy land and, according to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, you are not permitted to subdivide a 2 ha block unless there is a minimum of 1 ha unconstrained land on it.
Unconstrained land can mean two things. Generally it is a seepage area, or it can mean a flood line. We used to call it the one-in-100-year flood line. I believe it is called the 1% AEP. When a developer goes to the Development Consent Authority for approval, they have to show there is 1 ha of dry land on each parcel of land. Unfortunately, in the case of our favourite blocks of land in Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court, the developer did the wrong thing. If you believe what the Ombudsman said, the department did not check properly either, but that is another issue.
This is not the greatest example, but is an example of a block which was flooded. This map is what goes to a Development Consent Authority meeting. That map shows roads, the layout of the blocks, and should also show any land which is inundated or subject to seepage. That way the department and the Development Consent Authority can ask, ‘Is there 1 ha of land above that flood line?’ If there is, then the subdivision will be approved, subject to other things, but that is the last you will see of it.
You have a subdivision like this one, probably 30 or 40 blocks, which will get a stamp, the Chairman of the Development Consent Authority will give it a tick of approval, and it will disappear into the archives of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Unless you understand the system you will look at the block and, if you do not have enough knowledge of the vegetation or soil types, or unless there is water lying on the block – checking in March is a good time – you will not know it floods. There might be no neighbours because these are all new blocks, and you will have no one to talk to about it. You might ask the council but they would probably say, ‘Look up the water logging map’. You could go to Building Advisory Services in Parap, but if you do not know anyone with local knowledge, you will get a broad answer from the department.
A possible way around it is that if the Development Consent Authority accepts a parcel of land has 1 ha of unconstrained land it should be willing to say to the government, ‘Let us mark the title with that same line’. People might think that is fine, but there are some issues. Naturally, some years are wetter than others. Climate change might cause increased flooding on these blocks. Although the vegetation might indicate it will be dry, with time some of these lines may not be accurate. The way around that is to have an approximate boundary of unconstrained line and the year the subdivision was approved. If someone purchases a block, the title will show the date of the boundary of unconstrained and constrained land.
I am not asking the minister to agree to it tonight as there may be other technical matters, because we are dealing with subdivision and titles. There may be reasons for complications. However, the basis behind it is to reduce the chance of people purchasing land for a house, which is the most important purchase they make in their life, and being caught out as the people in Herbert, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo have been. It is so difficult to stand in someone’s house, as I did on several occasions when I worked for the council – once on Christmas evening and I was standing in the kitchen with water half way up my legs and the people were complaining that the council had not put a drain in. I said to them, ‘Those white ghost gums out the front’ – this was wet country.
People cannot always get the advice they want. This is a way because everyone would see the title when they bought the land. I presume you still get a folio; a map of the title, the name of the previous owners, and if it has a big line across it saying the area is unsuitable or is subject to flooding, you have a chance to protect those people from buying unsuitable land.
Members will know I tried to bring in legislation about how we sell land. The owner of the land should have to provide details about it. One compulsory detail I wanted was whether the land floods. The problem with what I am putting forward is this does not cover historical blocks of land and I do not know if that could be looked at. Older subdivisions did not go through the same processes we have today.
Subdivisions in my area go back to 1964 when there was no Northern Territory government. I suggest planning regulations were probably nil. People cut up land that was quite unsuitable for subdivision, and today people see it in the Dry Season, buy it, then find, to their disgust, they have wasted their money.
It is a simple motion before us, minister. I hope the government will tell us if it is possible and, if so, do we need legislation. Tidal surge could affect urban blocks. There are some rural blocks in Palmerston, even though I call them large suburban. I would not want 4000 m2 blocks being rural. There are blocks in Rapid Creek, also Leanyer. I put that forward as a variation on the theme of the motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, this is, of course, something the member for Nelson is very close to. From the outset, I agree with the sentiment of the motion. I will have to seek more advice on the practical implementation of something like this.
We have moved forward, particularly in the last 12 months, in that area and some of the changes we are making. I also shared some of the frustrations of a particular developer in the rural area, who we are still working with today to resolve issues. The Litchfield Council is also included in discussion of those issues. It has not been an easy road to cross.
I will repeat things I said in opposition. It is easy to speak in hindsight, but perhaps that land should never have been approved for development. I recently discussed wet blocks with other developers and the same issues have been raised. We have to work with developers because we need to turn off additional land in the Northern Territory to help with the housing crisis we have. However, we have to be careful with the line we draw in the sand. Yes, we are dealing with climate change today and whether it is a 100-year flood.
The regulation is 1 ha of dry land on any block. However, you might have a situation where, in a one-in-100-year flood event, the water might impinge by 30 cm for 20 minutes then start to recede. Where do you draw the line in the sand? With the changes in storms and storm surge, if it is closer to the coast where do you draw the line? We have hydrologists who can give you more accurate information, but how often does it change? You mentioned providing a map with a date saying, ‘As of today this is what we believe based on the best science’. However, in two or three years’ time, if a one-in-110-year flood – I do not know how they are recorded – or a one-in-200-year flood occurs, does that put anyone, including government, in breach of an agreement?
We recently introduced a land capability study where the developer of the land has to genuinely get professional advice on land capability. That will include coming up with flood lines if it is close to a storm surge zone. Therefore, prior to a development being approved, the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment will be certain the professional advice stacks up and any potential owners are fully aware of the situation on that block of land.
I was able to get information from the department, and some of this happened under the previous minster because he had to deal with the same issue. My information is that in 2011 new storm surge – we will talk storm surge as well as the rural area – mapping was released by the Department of Land Resource Management – you were obviously involved with that, former Minister for Lands and Planning – for coastal areas including Darwin, Palmerston, Litchfield, Weddell, Cox Peninsula and Dundee. This mapping provides detailed information on all land subject to the risk of primary – 100-year average reoccurrence interval – and secondary – 1000-year average reoccurrence interval – storm surge inundation.
The storm surge mapping was based on a sea level rise of 0.05 m to 2050, and a sea level rise of 0.08 m to 2100. The storm surge maps are publicly available from the Department of Land Resource Management website, and are also incorporated in the NT Integrated Land Information System, the ILIS system. On release of the new storm surge maps in 2011, all affected landowners were advised in writing, and the primary or secondary storm surge lines are provided on the record of the administrative interests.
Under the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience, the NT government, along with other state and territory jurisdictions, is developing capability investment plans, CIPs, for enhancing disaster resilience in the built environment to be completed by the end of 2013. The CIP for the NT will include a review of options to improve the availability of natural hazard information in land use planning frameworks, including under the Planning Act and the NT Planning Scheme.
On 2 July 2013, I agreed to exhibit a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme to introduce guidelines and development controls for the subdivision of constrained land within the rural zones and unzoned land of the Northern Territory. The proposed amendment was exhibited from 12 July 2013 to 16 August 2013. A number of late submissions are being accepted to ensure all major stakeholders have the opportunity to respond.
Reporting body hearings were established in Alice Springs on 11 September and in Litchfield on 13 September 2013. As part of the amendment, developers are required to seek professional advice on land suitability in relation to a specific site as part of a formal subdivision application in consultation with the Department of Land Resource Management and the relevant local government. The proposed amendment was developed in response to recommendations made by the Ombudsman’s report following the Lorikeet Court, Herbert report.
Essentially, government is not in a position to complete all studies. It would be a very expensive option and developers, in this case, need to seek professional advice.
Member for Nelson, I sincerely agree with the sentiment of the motion and will seek further advice regarding the practical implementation of what you are requesting. However, we are heading in the right direction by putting the onus back on developers to categorically provide information which demonstrates the capability of the land they want to develop prior to any development application being approved by either me as the minister, or through the DCA process.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate and an area I was working with as previous Minister for Lands and Planning. I was working with the member for Nelson because that case was new to me; however, it was another step in my learning. I will always remember the comment from the member for Blain, who went on to be the first Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment in the new CLP government. It was one of those anecdotal attacks on the previous government about releasing land and the same old diatribe that was trotted out regularly. He said ‘I flew over Darwin. I looked down and saw all that land and the Labor government is doing nothing about it.’
I will never forget that comment because the privilege and honour of being the minister commenced the more intensive learning from my humble beginnings. I bought a rural block of land and I walked it. I looked at the trees types, I followed the creek, and I looked at the soil structure. I talked to the neighbours, and I will not select a site for a house until I look at the area in flood. They were my humble beginnings. That was the pragmatic approach I took to this block of land. Then I became the minister so the science definitely came into the debate. I was also privileged to work with the experts who were interested in my learning, and along came the issue of Pelly Road and Lorikeet Court.
I remember when I first looked at that issue and the challenges we were experiencing – what the minister called a one-in-1000-year event. We were measuring rainfall in the Top End in metres, not millimetres. There were two years of incredible Wet Seasons which crept right down into Central Australia and the Territory got a thorough drenching. Those events were quite remarkable, and I will give the Minister for Infrastructure a tip: you have been let off in your first year because you ain’t seen nothing yet. When you see some serious rain in this country you will be challenged around infrastructure. This event highlighted the need for new systems. We did not abandon the affected residents, and we worked with the member for Nelson, which I enjoyed.
We looked at solutions. There were engineering solutions, possible relocation, possible purchase back of blocks, and there was a lot of work going on between the department and the residents. A drainage solution was planned for that area, but it was very difficult to get a consensus and a resolution among affected residents. We were working on that, and the member for Nelson started looking at this possible solution.
It is now with the minister. It was good to hear the minister tonight state, ‘I will take it on board. I will work with the experts.’ That is me paraphrasing what the minister said. I support that because the minister will need to talk to hydrologists and look at the systems around mapping of land in the Territory so there can be an additional layer of evaluation and assessment put to the developer.
The minister will discover some interesting facts on this journey in the area of lands and planning. It will be really exciting and very interesting. There is the science to do this, but there are other costs associated with it. That is what governments are continually challenged with. That is the balance of delivering and the balance of appropriating taxpayers’ dollars.
I look forward to the minister’s exploration in this area. It is possibly an advantage for the minister to have his new Planning Commission because I am sure the Planning Commission could give some real guidance on this. Some research will be done and investigation carried out, and the minister will get the information to assess. The minister can present the case for a Cabinet submission and approval, and we can move on.
The member for Nelson has laid out the foundation for this. It is now in the minister’s court and he has agreed to take this to government and have it assessed. It will be interesting to see what can be done and how, in a simple and pragmatic way, using the modern systems of science and hydrologists, and being able to overlay that in a system which can be presented to, eventually, the buyer of that land.
In the meantime, there is the issue of constraints. It does not stop with a one-in-100-year flood event or one-in-1000-year flood event or, as the minister mentioned, with storm surge mapping and cyclonic events. These constraints are very real and the Territory, as the last frontier, is involved. There are all types of constraints around biting insects and land use that will preserve vast tracks of the Territory in its natural form. There are no two ways about that, and that is the balance.
The rhetoric coming out of the CLP government about cutting red tape and green tape really rings alarm bells. The member for Nelson should be concerned about that because shortcuts can create real issues downstream – pardon the pun – or down the track.
The previous government learnt from that one-in-1000-year event, and we were about finding a resolution for those affected residents. The member for Nelson has proposed a more generic system to resolve the issue of flooding on low lying blocks, wet blocks, and the minister has given his commitment to explore that with the experts to see what can be developed.
It is a good motion. We have had a very positive response from the minister, and it will move forward. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this debate to the parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): In summing up, thank you to both speakers for their thoughts on this motion.
I have heard the minister and the ex-minister talking about the science. I sometimes think we add cost to land development which might be a little excessive. The government has said we will have to get professional advice about the block of land. I worked on the council for 13 years, I was Chairman of the Planning Committee, and I was president of the council and probably looked at every subdivision in the rural area. I was also on and off the Development Consent Authority, depending on how many times I upset the government.
There are several basic concepts when you subdivide. Water will flow downhill, so if you have decent contour maps of an area to be subdivided you will see by the contours where water will run or lay. In the case of this subdivision, that was not done and the minister will know the department had a surveyor draw a half metre contour map which showed everything. It showed where the water would rise until it drained. That one thing, if it had been done, would have immediately given accurate information as to the height of the water, even in a one-in-1000-year flood because once it reached a certain height it would overflow to a block of land I believe the government has now purchased.
The other thing that is a key to understanding whether your block is waterlogged or flooded is vegetation. The government also drew a vegetation map, the one I have here and, believe it or not, this map was nearly identical to the contour map.
They are two basic things which need to be done, especially on rural land. One is proper contouring so you know where water will go. If contours are fairly close together, you know there is a slope. If the contours are far apart, you know you have ground that could be sloppy. It does not require Einstein; it probably does not require a company from Melbourne to create a 20-page document on how 10 blocks of land can be subdivided. It needs basic common sense and scientific ideas that have been around for donkey’s ages.
I walk the blocks. It was called ‘ground truthing’ in the department. The other thing is you wait until it rains and say, ‘Fellows, we will check this block out in March’. You get your gum boots – we used to call it the slosh method. I walked around with a developer and, if you look at a map of Litchfield you will see boundaries that go zig zag, zig zag because he would not make straight lines. We walked some two or three times and put pink tapes on trees. We walked and walked. Are those blocks flooded today? No, because we did the ground truthing.
There are three things. You can use science, use the ground truthing method, and, if they are done properly and the Development Consent Authority is pleased that the information given to them has been checked by the department and signed off by the developer as accurate – if he says they are not accurate he is in trouble – then you will get a mark on the subdivision map saying, ‘This is the line of seepage or flood’.
If the department says that is the line, they should be able to put their hands on their hearts and say that line can go on the title with the proviso it was approved in 2000-whatever. You might even put a plus or minus 10% variation. At least it will give any purchaser an indication. That is what you should put on the plan, minister. I know you are surrounded by two beautiful women; I am not sure if you can get a word in. However, it could have ‘indicative of’ because it sends out a clue. There are a few wet blocks in Drysdale, and this is important. It could send information to the prospective purchaser, ‘Beware, this is indicative of where the flooded area on the block is’.
I understand, minister, you have some changes. Good, we need those changes. You do not want to be increasing the price of land too much by getting a 20-, 30-, or 40-page report on how suitable these blocks are; you can use plain common sense. Talk to Gary Nairn, a man who deals with spatial science. He has been in the surveying game for a long time.
Some pretty fundamental things tell you where land is wet. Add it to the vegetation and ground truthing and you should not make too many mistakes. I throw that in as someone who has, in the past, and still do if I can, walked blocks of land to ensure they are okay.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for agreeing to consider it. No guarantees come with that, but I will twist your arm outside parliament to ensure you do something positive.
Motion negatived.
Division called; not supported.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 157, I request you record my dissent.
MOTION
Chaos in the Territory Government
Chaos in the Territory Government
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns the CLP for the deepening and ongoing chaos in the Territory government, hurting families and businesses and our lifestyle, and
1. inflicting power and water price hikes spiking the cost of living
2. ongoing turmoil in the NT Public Service with five ministerial reshuffles and two chiefs in 12 months
In the October sittings of the Assembly last year, the first sittings of the new parliament, we heard speaker after speaker from the new government proclaiming better days for the Territory, in particular, a promise for a responsible, transparent and accountable government. Twelve months later the reality is there for all to see: chaos, dysfunction and uncertainty about our future. To rub salt into the wound of Territorians, the government has bragged about its achievements in capital works which were things put in place by the former Labor government. It has bragged about construction activity happening off the back of the hard work of the former Labor government which had been stable, responsible and capable. Decisions to secure the INPEX gas project, develop the Marine Supply Base and build the new Darwin correctional facility have proven to be right, with strong growth in the construction sector thanks to those projects.
We were a responsible can-do government; a government Territory families and businesses could have confidence in. Let us look at the CLP record in government under two failed Chief Ministers and a revolving door Cabinet.
There has been so much chaos and dysfunction it is hard to know where to start. Perhaps the greatest failure of this CLP government has been to understand the pain Territory families feel daily as a consequence of their conduct and decisions: cost of living increases, largely driven by power and water price hikes hitting the family budget at every turn; and the cost of doing business in the Territory pushed down to families at the same time as they struggle with power bills.
Recently, an independent NTCOSS report showed our power prices are rising at double the rate of the rest of the nation, bar Adelaide, and highlighted the financial stress being applied to Territory families by this CLP government.
Earlier this year we saw figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showing the Territory inflation rate is the highest in the country and forecast to grow at the fastest rate for the next five years. Instead of understanding the impact of the cost of living increases, the CLP, driven by their bungling Treasurer, Tollner, is preparing to inflict more pain on Territorians by splitting up Power and Water and preparing this critical essential public asset for sale. The government says it is putting in place a commercial framework to drive efficiency, but we know this code has been used elsewhere as a precursor for privatisation of assets without any expert evidence to show it is necessary. We know, and see elsewhere in Australia, this leads to privatisation, price increases and reduced reliability.
The difference between us and the CLP is Labor would not impose a commercial framework on the organisation, rather a financial sustainability framework. We would not have sacked the independent board of experts and expert local business people. We would not be splitting Power and Water into three, driving up costs. We have seen these structural changes fail elsewhere in Australia, yet the CLP is still hell-bent on introducing them. They are preparing Power and Water for asset sale, which will ultimately cause more price hikes for Territory families and businesses. We know, shamefully, there is a target to reduce the workforce of Power and Water by 40% - 400 workers slashed by Christmas this year. They will not go on the record to tell us if they are slashing apprentices. However, we know they are not taking on apprentices at the rate they used to, eternally to their shame.
The cost of living is also hurting Territorians in that other big component of family budgets, housing. The CLP promised they would reduce the cost of housing yet, under Adam Giles and the CLP, this has risen by 7.7% in Darwin. Despite a promise to make housing more affordable, all we have seen under this government is their scrambling to develop coherent housing policies whilst scrapping ones which were working.
The CLP led Territorians to believe they would provide a stable government under the leadership of the member for Blain, Terry Mills. Instead, we have seen, as we saw when they were a rabble and fighting within, they have become worse. Five ministerial reshuffles in 12 months – unheard of – two Chief Ministers, departmental reshuffles, renaming, rebadging, reshaping, a revolving door of CEOs, chaos and confusion across the public service. Hard-working public servants want to get on with their work providing services to Territorians and helping our Territory grow, instead they go to work in fear of their job disappearing and with uncertainty of the direction, because it is directionless, of government policy.
In the first months of the CLP government hundreds of public servants lost their jobs. Perhaps the most shocking example was the chaos and job losses in Child Protection, with whistle-blowers warning that the merger of the Child Protection and Education departments was not working and was putting children at risk, warning that department arrangements were dysfunctional and child abuse reports were slipping through the cracks.
We developed serious and responsible child protection for this Territory. The CLP has systematically dismantled it. The CLP, on coming to government, has turned its back on expert evidence for an expert framework of child protection in the Northern Territory. They dismantled the stability that agency had fought so hard to achieve. They created uncertainty and confusion, leaving the Northern Territory Children’s Commissioner to say:
- When you’ve got this level of instability that we’ve had over the last year or so, obviously the work is going to suffer.
They transferred public service department headquarters to Alice Springs because it suited the minister who lived there, and the new CEOs were handpicked and appointed by the CLP; departments having to change their letterheads and signage one month, then doing so again a short time later; the extraordinary situation of a Cabinet Minister for Alcohol Policy not being aware of changes to the Administrative Arrangements Order meaning they no longer had Alcohol Policy responsibility; a Local Government minister who described her local government bill reforms as the finest hour of the government, who was then dumped as minister weeks later and before the bill was debated in parliament; chaos in implementing headline government polices like the Homelands Extra Allowance – we still cannot get any minister to point to a community which has received the promised funds to improve homelands housing; and seeking to gag senior public servants in the parliament’s estimates process.
The chaos also extends to the non-government sector, one which provides critical family and community services to Territorians. These non-government services are essential to families in crisis. Non-government organisations often do the work far more efficiently than government could ever hope to achieve. Instead of valuing these services, they have been treated as shabbily as our public service. I am particularly reminded of the government writing to many service providers about cuts to their budget in the days leading up to Christmas last year, and another extraordinary circumstance where the CLP had only one piece of legislation to debate in two weeks of parliamentary sittings. That was last August. It was a continuing circus of chaos and dysfunction.
We are in the midst of the education dispute and the CLP does not seem to realise this dispute is not going away; as each day ticks over more information is coming to light about the real teacher losses from schools because the principals have had no choice but to tell staff. Staff have had no choice but to put their rsums in for the jobs, knowing how many will lose their jobs at that school.
Failing Territorians by not addressing the education needs of our children to give every child a good start in life and the opportunity of the best possible career hurts us all. It especially affects those most disadvantaged across our bush schools, our regional areas, and our Indigenous children.
Rejecting Better Schools funding was a political stunt, a ploy in relation to the Commonwealth government. They said no to an additional $96m for Indigenous kids in Stuart, $140m for Indigenous kids in Arafura, $126m for Indigenous kids in Arnhem, $109m for Indigenous kids in Namatjira, and $84m for Indigenous kids in Daly.
I look forward to a media release from the Education minster, the Treasurer or the Chief Minister confirming that level of funding for each of those electorates. Call your mate Tony Abbott and get the deal signed, because that is what you led people to believe. We are looking for the sign off, the media release, the fanfare.
The CLP is also stripping crucial resources out of our schools by slashing into its own education budget by 10%. NAPLAN results show we need more progress in improving results for our children, especially in bush and middle schools where the CLP teacher cuts will have a significant impact. Cutting teachers to improve results does not make sense. The government should focus on providing more individual attention in the classroom and not sacking teachers, putting at risk the work already done to improve our schools and opportunities for our children. The Minister for Education was on an overseas jaunt while NT schools were spiralling into meltdown with the budget cuts hitting the staffroom and people told of the coming cuts. He continues to cling to the fantasy that only 35 teachers will go, when we have already lost 50 teachers thanks to CLP cuts.
The Minister for Education has been flippant about the chaos saying, ‘No one jumped up and down when we lost 50 teachers. Now everyone is jumping up and down that we have lost 35.’ That was in the NT News two days ago. Fifty teachers have already been lost under the CLP. We know far more than 35 will go because they are not counting contract teachers. Whether you are on a contract or permanent, you are a teacher in a classroom teaching children. They are real teacher losses.
The CLP has also brought mayhem into our health system. There is an increase in double-bunking and wait times for medical assistance at Royal Darwin Hospital because they wanted to fill the medi-hotel with drunks instead. They turned their back on concrete plans for Palmerston hospital, wanting to go their own way in an untested plan on a new facility on a new site plucked off a map during the recent federal election campaign, turning their back on Commonwealth funding for an important health asset – $3m for supported accommodation for patients in Gove and support for renal patients. The Palmerston hospital decision causes a delay of about two years, but you do not hear the CLP being honest about that.
It is shameful to use the medi-hotel at Royal Darwin Hospital to lock up drunks when it was designed to support patients coming in from regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory who needed supported accommodation. No one in the CLP is fighting for people in the bush who deserve access to the medi-hotel for support with their healthcare needs.
We have seen the flawed alcohol consequences. They laud the fact that people are in rehab. The first ones are coming out to drink again. Alcohol protection orders but no enforcement tools, what a farce! This alcohol system was described as an expensive waste of money by the Australian Medical Association, and any expert living and working in that field will tell you the same thing if you want to listen. We know the CLP does not listen.
They are claiming the work of improving healthcare assets out bush as though it was their own. There was a shameful period in Question Time from the new Health minister, the member for Araluen, when we know every one of those capital projects was delivered by the Labor government in Canberra. How embarrassing to laud that as a significant initiative under your government when not one cent came from you. It was all signed off and delivered before you came to government. Thank you, Warren Snowdon, member for Lingiari, for delivering on those important and critical health clinics in the bush.
In just a year the CLP government has scrapped the children’s wing at Royal Darwin Hospital, scrapped the hospital plans, come up with their own delaying it for at least two years, scrapped the medi-hotel and scrapped renal facilities in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. They have also scrapped the GP super clinic in the northern suburbs, scrapped the patient accommodation in Katherine and Gove, jam-packed our emergency departments up and down the Territory with drunks, and there has been no progress on a $13m upgrade to Gove District Hospital Accident and Emergency.
Let us look at the situation on the job front. You would hope, under a government that thinks it is business-friendly, you would see some positive news on the job front. No, not even there. Recent labour force figures show 7500 Territorians are looking for work as unemployment under the CLP has risen to 5.5%. We see increased staff unhappiness, morale dropping to all-time lows, industrial action across a raft of areas – all as a result of broken election commitments by the CLP – spiking in the cost of living and broken promises to support frontline workers. They are not supporting or respecting frontline workers, they are sacking frontline workers. Workers are forced to challenge the sense of the government’s decisions and struggling to support their families – teachers, firies and bus drivers. At one stage, police were speaking out.
It is unbelievable that this government parades through the charade that, somehow, they know what they are doing when it has been so chaotic and dysfunctional.
In the bush, people are genuinely concerned about jobs because they see them lost from schools, health clinics and the shires. Tender changes are threatening shires’ funding for housing repairs and maintenance, but it is shrugged off by the CLP. Contracts could go to fly-in fly-out southern companies but, hey, that does not matter. It does not matter if people in remote communities want critical repairs done to their houses. They will have to wait until a team flies in rather than have people employed locally by the shires to do the repairs and maintenance because the CLP does not really care.
Business confidence in the NT government has crashed by 22% in the first year, but that is okay because they believe they are okay. How can business work with a government that is not working with them? Their Business Advisory Council is a group of handpicked friends, not representatives of the industry organisations nominated by business. Why would they want to hear from anyone who is not in their close mate circle?
Potentially catastrophic is the reneging on the gas to Gove deal. I thank the federal minister for Resources, Ian Macfarlane, for saying he will secure 300 PJ of gas. The federal minister for the Coalition gets it and Adam Giles does not. There was no consultation with the mining sector over new financial levies on that sector until after the decision was made.
In dodgy deals for mates – my God, there has been a plethora in such a short time. We saw the CLP Renewable Management Board determine we should all have a spike in the cost of living. The $1m Renewable Management Board of old cronies did not even provide a final report, or, if they did, please show us. You will not show us because you operate under a shroud of secrecy. Any report informing anything you do is never released to the public. The CLP paid their mates nearly $1m for just six months’ work and no report to show for it. An interim report runs to about six pages; you could have whipped it up overnight.
We saw the influx of CLP mates, former MLAs, failed election candidates, filling up fifth floor positions then bouncing back into the department at various levels. Since Adam Giles has become Chief Minister, 11 extra people have been employed in the Office of the Chief Minister, 10 on six-figure salaries with two staff employed at the EO6 level, the highest available in the public service. They are being paid more than $300 000. We did not even have one at that level when in government; you have two. It is extraordinary!
There are persistent rumours of Queensland power suppliers being interested in our Power and Water assets – Northpower, to buddy up with their retailer who already has retail in this jurisdiction.
There are persistent rumours in the CLP interest and backroom discussions on the sale of Darwin port. We saw the handing over of water rights to Tina MacFarlane because she was the CLP candidate in Lingiari, while you scrapped the strategic Indigenous water reserve policy that had been worked on to represent the interests of traditional owners. Now there is a promise of millions of dollars to secure a deal for land leasing on the Tiwi Islands, mainly Melville. I hope you are consulting with the traditional owners because they have every right to hear what is proposed to happen to 10 000 ha of their land. They have every right to get the details, down to the last cent, of what will be spent, where it will go, what jobs will be involved, what training will be involved, where the profits will go, and how those profits will help them, because it is their land. However, there are more backroom discussions shrouded in secrecy.
I hope, at the very least, you are meeting with the Munupi who have the bulk of the 10 000 ha of land on the Tiwi Islands. However, I will not hold my breath because that is not how this government operates. It is not open and transparent, and certainly not accountable; it is a shambles.
There were rumours at the start of the week that the Deputy Chief Minister would be dumped. I said, ‘That’s not going to happen. This is the eve of sittings. They will not jettison the Deputy Chief Minister on the eve of sittings.’ We have the Chief Minister flying to Japan on Friday. Clearly, there are some nervous people around because we cannot go through the embarrassing diplomatic disaster of sacking a Chief Minister while overseas.
There will be more turmoil because there are deep divisions in the CLP ranks which cannot be healed. We saw that with the sacking of the member for Namatjira – dumped to the backbench. She has been kept quiet on promises, and if they do not eventuate she will not go quietly. It will be interesting to see what happens as we hear all manner of rumours.
However, the Territory is suffering through your chaos, dysfunction, arrogance and inability to understand that good policy comes from good partnerships – engaging with all sectors of the Northern Territory. Territorians deserve a far better government than this disgusting shambles.
We condemn you.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business: It barely deserves a response, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not spend a great deal of time on it. It is the same vile and vitriol we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition with nothing to add other than more vile and vitriol.
It is an unremarkable presentation driven by an unremarkable Leader of the Opposition who seeks to pop up like a strychnine sprinkler and spray the room with her lacerating opinions. We know that while she launches into us with her perceptions of instability the razor blade has to deal with the marshmallow on the other side. Frankly, there is nothing constructive in what she offered to this House. It was not even edifying for her.
If this is the quality of leadership the Leader of the Opposition would bring to the people of the Northern Territory, I can well understand why there is concern about her leadership amongst her own ranks.
Doubtless, she will continue to do this because it is in her DNA. She knows no other way than to communicate through the malignant language she continues to use and cannot bring herself to, even for a few moments, raise above the personal attack other than when she produces literature shoved into people’s letterboxes peddling mistruths. We have copies of the flyer which went out and it is completely wrong. That is the problem with the Leader of the Opposition; she is not an honest person and treats people with scathing contempt. The moment somebody challenges her about her style and the type of person she is …
Ms Lawrie: Just cannot handle the truth.
Mr ELFERINK: She cannot listen silently, as we on this side have listened silently to her diatribe. She must respond because she is incapable of demonstrating any restraint or discipline whatsoever. She is a toxic Leader of the Opposition, who leads in a toxic fashion, which has even spilt into this House. I saw her deride her leader of opposition business a few months ago in a most embarrassing fashion. It is small wonder she is on the nose amongst her own colleagues.
The way she incompetently set up her member for Nightcliff yesterday was embarrassing. To have trotted her out in the fashion she did – in truth, the member for Nightcliff would be desperately embarrassed by what happened yesterday because she was not prepared and did not follow her own counsel. The Leader of the Opposition
is prepared to use her colleagues as human shields in her relentless pursuit of dishonesty and untruths. Now, that is out of my system.
I am proud of being part of the Northern Territory government and proud of the things we are achieving, as we are proud of the things we are achieving. What this comes down to is the Leader of the Opposition has not got over the fact they lost the election. The Leader of the Opposition is only interested in running down anything she can. There is no support for any positive programs, just diatribe, rumour and innuendo. She said it herself, she relies on rumours.
She launched into the member for Daly’s reputation in a most unspeakable fashion, supported by nothing more than rumour. She has launched into the reputation of other people in this House, including public servants, and reflected on people like the Water Controller, suggesting he has been complicit in a corrupt act. Yet in the same breath she says she is defending public servants. Any public servant who disagrees with her world view is up for the chop should she be successful at the next Territory election, and she has made that abundantly clear. She names public servants in this House. She names people in this House and refuses to utter those slanders, libels and defamations outside. It is the nature of this Leader of the Opposition. The opposition is not well-served by this person and is only concerned with demonstrating itself to be a malignant force, exactly what it is achieving.
Never in the history of this parliament am I aware of an opposition being put on a warning, simultaneously, for its conduct. They complained, when in government, that the opposition was a rabble. Rabble is not even close to describing the conduct I have witnessed today. I could continue because, after five minutes of doing what she did for half-an-hour, I am getting a nasty taste in my mouth because I do not find this pleasant, so I will talk about other things.
I want to talk about a mandatory alcohol policy aimed at people in our community with an alcohol problem, a policy we are proud of. Will it work in the long run? I hope so. We are willing to bet so. It was far more effective than a BDR which did nothing to stem the amount of alcohol consumed in our communities. It was not reflected in the figures.
Whilst the Banned Drinker Register was operational, the most frequent flyer went through the system 117 times. According to the government, this person was not able to purchase alcohol. How did that person, 114 times, obtain liquor whilst on the Banned Drinker Register? Many other frequent flyers were not quite as frequent as the chairman’s lounge member 117 times, but there were many platinum members, a handful of gold members, and a bucket load of silver members, all who would have been on the Banned Drinker Register. We were apprehending people for public drunkenness at the same rate in spite of the fact 2500 were on a list. How did that happen? That should have solved the problem.
You could well believe, listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of opposition business earlier today, that the Banned Drinker Register was the most amazing policy ever visited upon liquor consumption in the Northern Territory, not borne out by the facts, borne out by an opinion of a policy that is not statistically supportable.
The other policies they whinge about are policies they were not prepared to subscribe to prior to the last election. We went to the election with a promise to deal with open speed limits and have moved down that path in accordance with that promise.
We promised to introduce one punch homicide legislation, something the opposition was highly resistant to. We have kept that promise, and nobly so. We promised to introduce serious sexual offender legislation and have kept that promise, and rightfully so. We promised, prior to the last election, to introduce mandatory sentencing for assaults which occasioned harm, and we have, and rightly so.
I will pause there because that is what they promised prior to the last election. In fact, they said they had introduced it except it did not work in any functional way and, as a consequence, we sought to fix it so it did. However, if you read the media releases from the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, they said exactly what our media releases said, the only difference is we introduced a mandatory minimum of three months rather than, ‘You will be incarcerated’. This meant people were being incarcerated until the rising of the court. There was no effective mandatory sentencing and, therefore, it was designed to appease the courts and the lawyers, as well as be portrayed as a mandatory sentencing policy. In fact, it did not achieve what was promised. Therefore, they launch into a diatribe in this House and say it is all wrong. I refer members of this House to the debates surrounding mandatory sentencing for assaults, and they then failed to vote against it – could not bring themselves to because they did not want to be on the record for resisting something they passionately resisted in this House. They are in no way covering themselves in glory.
Talk about a confused response. I heard a very confused response where the leader of opposition business, the would-be Chief Minister, managed to do exactly what the member for Nelson did for years in this House, which is say, ‘I agree with your sentiment but I will not support you’. What does that mean? What can people rely on? It is an each way bet and typical of this opposition. They are prepared to do everything by an each way bet.
All the matters the Leader of the Opposition listed in cuts – I would like to tally the value of the things she promises. I have heard about $1bn worth of promises from the members opposite in the last 12 months. Where is that $1bn coming from?
We hear demands during adjournment debates that a school needs this, that place needs this, whatever needs that support, and why are we not helping out. You have the luxury of opposition and do not have to do the costings. Perhaps it is time we listed all the promises the members opposite make and put money against them to see how much they are prepared to spend. We can ask them where the money will come from. Do you borrow it, do you hope it falls out of the ether, or do you tax Territorians more? These are the problems of government and something members of the opposition do not want to turn their minds to.
We have the legacy of the projected $5.5bn debt, something the former Treasurer, now would-be Chief Minister, believes is a matter of minor import. I do not believe that. We are attempting to do something about it and all we hear is screeching and squealing from the people opposite, those who caused part of the problem. Life would be good if there was a clean slate after every election, but that is not how it works. We have to inherit the legacy left to us by former governments.
In Correctional Services, I acknowledge the former minister made some ground in developing policies, and I am grateful to him. However, having made that observation, it was not driven the way it should have been. Since day one of becoming Minister for Correctional Services I have passionately driven a number of policies and extended them in directions I did not expect to just over a year ago.
I am proud it will not be too long before we have an MOU in place with the Gumatj Association in Nhulunbuy, which will see a permanent work camp there. This is a pathway for low-security prisoners to do work in the community and to work their way into full-time jobs in that community. That will be a good result, and we hope to reproduce that on Groote Eylandt and the Tiwi Islands with the permission of traditional owners, and in places like Borroloola.
I am also working hard to advance a commercial division of Correctional Services so we can use our product to defray the costs we in have running a corrections system. If we can defray some of the costs we can direct some of the money into programs, say in remote communities, which will save people going into custody in the first place.
I am currently working on a number of policy initiatives, now child protection has fallen within my domain as Minister for Child Protection, which will help develop resilience in families in new and innovative ways which will not cost more. In fact, I hope the results I anticipate from those programs will cost less, which will mean we can put even more money into remote communities in particular, but also other places, to develop better results in communities. I hope to do so with as much imagination, energy, and intelligence as I can muster. If we can do that and change results by rolling out effective policies, that will be, selfishly, a proud moment for me.
This government is signalling to the rest of the world we are open for business and is currently in a number of negotiations. The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries has done much in his area to develop and promote the Northern Territory, and the Minister for Tourism has done much to promote the Territory to the rest of the world. Whilst we hear members opposite complain and whinge about it and describe it as a waste of money, it shows more imagination and insight than we saw from the former government.
Their tourist policy was labelled SOS: not very imaginative. It was poor judgment leading to a sales pitch which saw tourist numbers continue to fall. To hear members opposite complain about the current tourism program, when they were responsible for a tourism product which saw tourist numbers fall badly – they have to be a little more careful than they are at present.
I could go on ad infinitum. In fact, I regret the first five minutes of my speech because I do not like that personal stuff, but it is like that when we hear so much from them. I thought I would serve a bit back, and they did not like it. They interjected the whole way through. I would like to think I am a better member of parliament and will not stoop to that again.
The Leader of the Opposition struggles to help herself. I ask for an improvement of debate in this House so people in the Northern Territory can hear reasoned debate. I ask all members, particularly members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to stick to the facts. Surely there are enough points of difference between us without having to …
Ms Lawrie: You were clearly not listening.
Mr ELFERINK: No, what I heard was the usual diatribe and poison. Obviously you will not be told, which is a shame, but I will continue working for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, as we all should.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion and will give a regional story around the chaos created by the CLP. The member for Port Darwin was trying to defend the indefensible in his speech because he is the hard worker on the team. He is the intellect, and I am afraid the CLP government is assaulting that intellect, which is probably why he was so frustrated and jaded in the first five minutes of his response. It was not about the opposition; it was about dealing with the chaos within the party and the parliamentary wing he so dearly loves.
I will give the government a regional story of chaos within the CLP and how it affects the people of the Barkly. Three major things happened very early after I was first elected. Seventy metres of the Barkly Highway washed out completely, John Howard put a nuclear waste dump in my lap and the world fell over with the global financial crisis. As a member of the Labor government I embarked upon the exercise of saving Territory jobs, keeping the Territory on track, and delivering what the CLP has inherited: an economy that is the envy of the nation.
That is part of the incredible journey I was privileged to experience. Working with the government in Barkly I remember the Tennant Creek main street enhancement program and the work going on around that; the first land release in 30 years with 54 lots of land sold, two releases and now a whole new subdivision under construction; the Barkly Work Camp, one of the essential platforms in Labor’s new era of Corrections; doubling the size of our renal dialysis unit in Tennant Creek from eight beds to 16; a brand new sobering-up shelter built in Tennant Creek. Remember, this is in partnership with the federal government. It was not all Territory money, but it was about good governance and working in partnership. It was about getting the best deal for the Territory and the Barkly under a functional government.
The new sobering-up shelter dealt with the most disadvantaged in our community. There was also a brand new police station, a new Accident and Emergency section to our hospital, a new school at Borroloola, and a purpose-built gym at Tennant Creek High School. I was an ex-teacher from Tennant Creek High School running an alternative education program from that campus. I sweated in the old gym on presentation nights, functions and gigs, and the school community could not fit in. The Chief Minister and I listened to those people and out of it came a purpose-built gymnasium for Tennant Creek High School. There was a record investment in education across Tennant Creek and the region through the Building the Education Revolution; a bridge over the McArthur River; and 20 km of new Barkly Highway constructed; the finality of flood immunity and new highway provision across the Gilbert Swamp on the Stuart Highway; heavy vehicle fatigue management truck parking bays, five just in the Barkly; major upgrades to the Carpentaria and Tablelands Highways; and upgrades to the Barkly Stock Route.
There was also the first ever Integrated Regional Transport Strategy, with a new route from Borroloola to Katherine, a daylight express to Elliott to get people to Tennant Creek and Alice Springs for hospital and for service delivery and a new route to Ali Curung. As I said, there was a daylight express between Tennant Creek and Alice Springs to make it easier for people; upgrades to Purkiss Memorial Reserve, our main sport and recreation precinct in Tennant Creek; the Ali Curung water treatment plant; and the Alpurrurulam wind, solar and diesel. I cannot go on, unfortunately, because I will run out of time.
That was what I experienced from a functional government. Then, on 25 August 2012, it changed. One very wise member of the previous government told me democracy is about the people. The people will always be right so bite the bullet and do what you can to ensure they are a one term government. That is what this opposition is all about.
The member for Port Darwin must lament not being part of a team because he looks at our side and sees a team. He saw a team in government, and he sees a team in opposition. He must lament that because chaos from government comes from dysfunctional personal relationships, professional relationships, and the poor policy settings from Cabinet on the run.
What happened on 25 August was a reality. The people decided. The irony is, people in the bush decided. I do not have time to go into how that happened, but on 26 August I was at a function and was accosted by a woman I have known for many years, having taught her children. She is an alcoholic with a serious problem. She thanked me. ‘Kumanjayi, the Banned Drinker Register has been scrapped. It’s great news and I thank you for doing that.’ I pulled her aside and had an in-depth conversation. Unfortunately, she was alcohol affected, but I had a serious conversation with her. ‘That was not me, I do not support that’. It was open slather again. That was the first day this government took office. Word reverberated through the bush it was back on – no shirt, no shoes, no ID. It came back and we are struggling in Tennant Creek and the Barkly to deal with the effects of that policy decision alone.
We went for 12 months with nothing in its place and we finally see a roll-out and appropriation of $100m but it does not feature Tennant Creek. What is happening in Tennant Creek? People are thinking we are forgotten. It looks even worse, from my perspective, with the new Chief Minister, the second Chief Minister; it looks like he is determined to starve me out. I was a member of the Labor Party and worked behind the scenes for a Labor member in Barkly who battled our cause in democracy for 10 years. That was Maggie Hickey, and she starved for 10 years under the punitive CLP government, but things changed.
It looks like we have returned to the punitive CLP government, and this Chief Minister, the second one in the continual revolving door of the CLP ministry, looks like he is determined to try that strategy again, because in Tennant Creek we saw public service travel cuts. Then we started to see jobs going. Then we saw the power, water and sewerage price hikes. That is about the time – within a couple of months of this government – a caf owner said people in town had stopped buying sandwiches at his caf. I explored that. It was because they were frightened and intimidated. The environment crushed consumer confidence, and it started to crush business confidence.
Then the bigger picture started to emerge. There were major cuts to the infrastructure budget and the middle level contractor started to become concerned. Now, 14 months in, it has reached alarming levels where I am approached regularly about this real concern. Is it just the Barkly? I am wondering if it is. Is it a punitive strategy to get rid of me? I hope not.
When we talk about the CLP chaos we have a well-referenced alternative, it is about priorities. We are determined to continue to pressure the Minister for Education to go back to Cabinet and demand priorities for Territory children. ‘Okay, we cannot build that bridge for a few more years, we will push that out. We will not upgrade that section of road, we will maintain it for a few years, but we will not cut teachers and will not impact on education because that is our future.’ It does not matter what we do, if we do not have these kids prepared and families supported what is the use of it all? It is about priorities, and that is what we argue.
We know times are challenging economically, we had a step-out fiscal strategy as well but it was very different from you guys. We started to see the stories emerge around confidence shot to pieces and people are now asking a basic question. This government is all about blame, but what has the CLP done? The Chief Minister rides into town and starts with the rhetoric, ‘The previous member had four years and he’s done nothing for the Barkly’. I rattled off a little list to counter that debate, and I do not have to be too forceful because the people of Barkly judged me in 2012.
The Chief Minister rides into town and spends time trying to deliver the negative, vindictive rhetoric to run me down. He leaves town and we have an Office of the Chief Minister that will listen to the issues. Chief Minister, we have a spike in petrol sniffing, we have serious alcohol problems, we have an alcohol accord in Tennant Creek regrouping and trying to do things about alcohol abuse and work with the community, but we have decisions around selling the 750 ml bottles of white wine in plastic instead of glass. It is pretty desperate when that is the level of debate we are having in the absence of any alcohol policy impacting on our community.
The Banned Drinker Register was scrapped and we have been left to fend for ourselves. Chief Minister, we need Fly Tiwi, we need Hardy Aviation supported, and we need you to meet with them. We cannot lose that link with Darwin the capital city – the opportunity to connect with the envy of the nation, the economy of the Northern Territory, and the jewel in the crown, the Top End. We need that link.
Chief Minister, we need our women’s refuge enhanced. They want to talk to you. There are things you can do. We are not asking you to change the world, they are pragmatic things.
You will be considered chaotic, your record is atrocious. If you want to pull it back get into the regions, come to Tennant Creek, and talk with us. We need a residential bail program supported. We have juvenile delinquents and I have spent half my life working with them. We have a problem and need some support networks. We need a residential bail program where the juvenile diversion program can be supported. These initiatives, where we are labelled as socialist Laborites, are basically designed to save kids – keep them out of the prison system and, in Liberal economic rationalism, it saves dollars in the long run. The research is there. A residential bail hostel in Tennant Creek will not break the bank.
The Barkly youth providers want to talk to the AG. They respect the AG and know he is the hardest working member on that side and the person who must be suffering trying to deal with the chaos. As I said, it is an assault on his intellect. That must be hard going. I was in the opposite position when I was in government; I was surrounded by incredible intellect, drive, and enthusiasm that brought me up ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it is now 9 pm. Sorry, but I thought you would finish on that.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report from Member for Nightcliff
Travel Report from Member for Nightcliff
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a travel report from the member for Nightcliff pursuant to clause 4.12 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I talk about the recently launched CD/DVD and information for the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. Many of us know about the exploits of business people and Territorians who tried to grow rice at Lambells Lagoon many years ago.
The story of the Humpty Doo Rice Trail began in 1953 with two men at a party in Hollywood, Los Angeles, and ended in 1964 with one man standing in a rice mill near Darwin. The story reached across the Pacific Ocean, from Los Angeles to Humpty Doo, and it meandered around the Adelaide River floodplain and across a bumpy road to Coolalinga, then, of course, down to what is now the Fogg Dam area.
It was inspired by grand visions of taming a new frontier, settling northern Australia, and supplying rice to Asia. However, this vision was swept away by an unfamiliar environment that would not support farming methods and machinery from distant lands. In recent times we have seen people from overseas coming to our country thinking they can bring their technology and expertise, and it does not suit our landscape.
We know all about the poor magpie geese being blamed for ruining this project, but that is not correct, as most of us know. There were other culprits. There were design issues, water issues, financial issues, planning issues, and probably poor research issues. Territory Rice Ltd was a company established by Americans and encouraged by the Australian government of the day. It spent a lot of money trying to grow rice commercially at Humpty Doo, as it was called then but, strictly speaking, it was Lambells Lagoon.
How the money was spent is questionable, and the land never lived up to the expectations. Governments of the day also spent a great deal of money building roads and installing the power supply and other infrastructure. Early in the Wet Season, when irrigation water was needed for young rice, Adelaide River water was too saline for the rice varieties then available. It could be January before fresh water was available so, in 1956, Fogg Dam was constructed at a cost of $100 000. However, it lacked the vital channel to convey the water from the dam to the rice bays, then it was too wet to dig the required channel until six years later. Of course, that would have cost of lot of money.
Interestingly, during my research I found Fogg Dam was named after James Fogg, Managing Director of Utah Australia, one of the construction contractors for Territory Rice Ltd. Fogg Dam was built and there were issues with that, so they built Harrison Dam. Harrison Dam is one of the pretty aspects of our rural area, and also an area with magpie geese and ducks, and is available for people in the goose and duck seasons. That was built in 1958 at a cost of $80 000. However, it had no natural catchment area and had to be filled by pumping water from Adelaide River.
This created another problem. When pumping, Territory Rice used so much power the Northern Territory administration had to increase the capacity of the power station. In addition, pumps kept breaking down, eventually stopping after lightning set fire to a power substation. The dam never filled completely and was hardly used. The large pump installed at Middle Point to pump water from Adelaide River into the irrigation channel would have cost a small fortune, yet it could only be used while the river was fresh from the end of the Wet Season to the middle of the Dry Season, not when irrigation was most needed.
A great deal of money was spent on this project by all parties. Over $50 000 was spent on infrastructure for electricity to power pumps and the Territory Rice camp. Electricity still had to be paid for but, in fact, never was. Money was spent on harvesters and other large machinery. It is not known how much, but it would have been considerable.
In the USA, auger headers could be traded in for new machines after three years when the sealed non-greaseable bearings became unreliable and other parts were worn. The boggy Adelaide River floodplains were harder on these and other machines. Replacement parts took a long time to arrive, probably by boat in those days but could have been by plane, and trade-in was not an option in Australia. After a long, sad few years the companies and people involved went into liquidation and, under new management, local farmers who had worked for Territory Rice Ltd were able to bring their practical experience to the project.
Don Buck, Arthur Parker, Bob Parker and Ted Kilpatrick formed Rice Development Pty Ltd. At the launch of this rice trail about two weeks ago at Tourism NT Darwin’s headquarters on the corner of Bennett and Smith Streets, or as we know it, the old Reserve Bank, I met Ted Kilpatrick. He has made a photographic book on his time with Territory Rice. I also met some of the old diggers as I call them, who were involved with the then department of Water Resources in the Northern Territory Administration working with the farmers in regard to water hydrology trying to assist them with farming. It was nice to meet a couple of these guys because they had worked with my father, who was then Director of Water Resources, so it was a special time for me. I was asked by Friends of Fogg Dam to launch the rice trail documentation, and it was nice to meet some of the people there.
They too had problems which I will not detail, but a lot of information has been collated. It is being driven by the Friends of Fogg Dam and my compliments to Heather Boulden and Jeremy Hemphill, some of the key people in Friends of Fogg Dam. They have done a tremendous job pulling this project together with assistance and funding from the Northern Territory government through the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport as it was when they first received the grant. They have produced the publication and I compliment them, and all members of Friends of Fogg Dam, because they have put this on the website and developed a DVD. It is interactive and gives a really good picture into the history of people in the Territory who tried to grow rice successfully. It is interesting as the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries currently has experimental rice trials in Katherine.
The Humpty Doo Rice Trail starts in Darwin. You can visit the old - it is a big blue pump of some description owned by the Kennon family. You start at Winnellie and go to Fogg Dam and to Adelaide River. It is a large blue water pump. It is outside Kennon’s on Menmuir Street, Winnellie, and it was purchased for the rice project but was forfeited when Territory Rice was unable to pay customs duty. The rice mill is at Coolalinga on the Stuart Highway as you are driving south. Many of you probably do not realise it, but it is the large rusty shed on the left side before you get to Coolalinga shops. It looks like an old hanger, but it is one of the old rice sheds and is an historic building.
I am unsure who owns the property now, but as a child I would go to that shed with my parents and collect dog meat from Jim McGorry, a pet food shooter, for the boarding kennels my mother owned. That shed and the complex have a long history. It is a large tin shed but you cannot enter the grounds because it is private. It was designed and built by Arthur Hofmann, one of the world’s foremost rice milling experts, in 1957 and operated until 1966.
Keep going down the Stuart Highway to the Arnhem Highway and turn right into Lambells Lagoon at Anzac Parade. There is an electricity substation on the way built to provide electricity to these projects, obviously at great cost to the government. I do not know if the government of the day was paid for its commitment. At the corner of Anzac Parade - the road into Fogg Dam and Middle Point School - and the Arnhem Highway, there is a government radio transmission base. Territory Rice Ltd planned a small airfield there to replace Kent Airstrip. Of course, it never happened and, as we know, is for radio transmission.
Along Anzac Parade on the left hand side is the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation village, which is what it was in those days. A centre for agriculture research for soil, rice varieties and hydrological research was based there. That is now Middle Point. The Middle Point area has a long history regarding research. There is signage available and information on this documentation.
Fogg Dam itself, as many of us know, is the place to go if you like nature and looking at large crocodiles, big snakes and lots of birds. However, there is a large saltwater crocodile in that dam now and signs saying, ‘Do not walk across the dam wall because the big crocodile has not been caught’.
It is a great project and I compliment Jeremy Hemphill and Heather Boulden and Friends of Fogg Dam, and all those who have contributed to the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. It really puts the Territory on the map when it comes to providing eco-based and wildlife-based tourism, which I know that is important to many people, particularly Europeans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the Humpty Doo Rice Trail.
Leave granted.
Ms PURICK: I encourage anyone who reads or listens to this adjournment to get a copy. Look on the Internet for the Humpty Doo Rice Trail. It is a fascinating insight into our history in the agricultural industry, and I know farmers of today learnt a lot from the project.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak on an issue in my electorate which is causing great angst and stress. We are in the final term of the school year and teachers, students and parents should be focusing on assignments, exams, final reports and the holidays. However, a number of members of our school community are going through a stressful period of uncertainty. The Northern Territory Open Education Centre is located in my electorate in Nightcliff. It has around 650 students across the Territory. It is a unique and important school. It has unique facilities to teach in this environment, teaching some of our most isolated students.
The Northern Territory Open Education Centre has been at its current location in Chrisp Street, Rapid Creek for over 25 years. It has studio classrooms enabling teachers to use technology to teach students across the Territory. Teachers also have work stations set up so they can communicate with students easily without disturbing other staff.
The Essington School Darwin indicated it needed to expand. It is currently located at the old Rapid Creek Primary School site next to NTOEC. The government had flagged moving NTOEC to a purpose-built facility at Darwin Middle School which would have meant one move for staff and students and they would have access to a purpose-built facility.
In June, the Minister for Education flagged the NTOEC move. Following this, the shadow minister for Education and I requested a briefing on the issue, something the minister constantly advises us to do. The day before our scheduled briefing, the minster issued a media release stating NTOEC would move to a temporary site until a new one was finalised. This was a temporary home with no firm plans or budget for a purpose-built facility. Where was the consultation?
Minister, you said in estimates hearings, ‘I believe the first thing to do is to consult with the Open Education Centre council’. However, you announced the move in a media release. There was no consultation. Those involved either read it in the media release or, I understand, staff at NTOEC were called into a meeting hours before the media release. No consultation, just a one-page media release leaving many unanswered questions.
The move of NTOEC to a temporary home at Nightcliff Middle School does not only cause disruption to NTOEC staff and students, but it is planned they move into the NT Music School purpose-built music space with stages, video and sound recording and editing studios. As one member of the music school said, ‘Aside from the sheer inconvenience of the move for everyone, there are issues about the NT Music School move which remain unresolved. Among them is suitability of the accommodation for individual tuition and ensemble work, not to mention the videoing, sound recording and editing.’
I also understand NTOEC will take over further space at Nightcliff Middle School which is purpose-built for ICT for Learning. This is purpose-built information technology space where experts in their field were assisting our classroom teachers deliver education in modern surroundings, but your government has decimated that area. You have all but shut down ICT for Learning. It is not the award winning learning environment it once was. Staff are devastated and feel forgotten. Their programs are on hold, and I understand they are not taking any bookings for professional development. There might be a few staff left, but the centre is essentially closed.
Minister, you previously assured this House ICT for Learning was simply moving. Staff deserve a detailed explanation.
The NT Music School has been relocated to Sanderson Middle School, an area which currently has Department of Education Student Services located in it. I understand this service is being removed from the school and relocated to the Harbourview Plaza, away from the students and teachers it supports.
There is no internal access road at Sanderson Middle School to allow for the frequent packing and moving of instruments for outside events, and public transport access to and from the school at times when ensembles are practicing is uncertain. In fact, school pick up and drop off is more difficult at Sanderson. The new location of the NT Music School is far more isolated compared to its current location, which raises safety issues.
Minister, you have caused great disruption; a domino effect of moves costing hundreds of thousands of dollars with no consultation. Staff in these schools are extremely worried and stressed. It might seem trivial, but they are wondering where they will be teaching, will they all fit, and if their desks will fit. I understand they will be in two different areas at Nightcliff Middle School.
There are many questions and a lack of consultation, something you were quick to criticise others of in the past. May I remind you, Minister for Education, you have said in the past telling people what you are doing is not consultation, it is arrogance.
Minister for Education, why the rush? Why was there no consultation? Minister, you did not meet with staff, students or parents, or the broader Nightcliff/Rapid Creek community. To quote the NTOEC school council:
- The council and parents of NTOEC feel that distance education is being treated as second best. School council is annoyed that the department considers this building unsuitable. It has been good enough up until now and, therefore, should remain our school premises until the purpose-built facility is completed.
This is a school we are talking about.
Last week you mentioned in debate in this House if students in the bush lose subjects they could take classes by distant education. With your government’s teacher cuts you expect NTOEC to help out yet you are cutting their resources by relocating the school.
Minister, as the local member of parliament for this area, I have a number of concerns and questions from my community, teachers, parents, students and residents which need answers. The Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area already has a growing traffic problem, particularly around school drop off and pick up time. We have five schools, three childcare centres, and a three-year old kindy located within our community - a large number of educational institutions within a small area. Nightcliff and Rapid Creek is popular with families, and this variety and choice of education is one of the reasons.
The Essington School Darwin is located on the old Rapid Creek Primary School site, a suburban primary school built for 300 or so students who would have mainly walked to school from surrounding streets. It has - I am unsure of the exact numbers - a strong and growing student population of many hundreds of students. In allowing The Essington School Darwin to move into the NTOEC building student numbers will surely grow.
The traffic and road safety issue is already causing huge concerns for local residents. With this potential growth we need a detailed traffic study, one that works with and involves our local residents and schools to ensure we look at all issues. There are issues such as parking around schools, and the safety of students and residents walking or riding. We are seeing huge traffic flow problems not just around the schools; this problem affects a large part of the area. We only have four roads in or out of the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area due to the peninsula. Congestion during peak times and the flow of traffic is a huge issue.
I acknowledge the commitment made by the Chief Executive of the Department of Education on radio to undertake a traffic study. The community and I look forward to working through this detail, but I stress this is a pressing and concerning issue. A number of people have come to see me about this, and it has turned into many issues.
Minister for Education, on behalf of all involved, particularly local residents, staff and students, I ask you to slow down and consult. One must question the time frame. What is the rush? This is causing great stress, particularly to teachers and students in this final school term.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on family violence. I am personally worried about the high level of domestic violence in our community and want to do more to prevent it.
I believe some Aboriginal men need a greater supportive framework in place to help them break away from welfare, stay out of the justice system, avoid alcohol abuse, and prevent family violence. I am keen to work and engage with community leaders and prevent family violence.
I believe men from a broad cross-section of communities need to come together and discuss the issue of family violence.
I am keen to hear what men think about the government’s current approach, and look forward to discussing where the government needs to concentrate more effort. As pointed out by others, violence has been so entrenched in some communities, and on the Tiwi Islands, it makes families dysfunctional.
Indigenous females are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence-related assaults as non-Indigenous females. In 2006-07, 48% of Indigenous homicide victims were female. We know women are still being bashed and certain children are still being abused. It is not part of anybody’s culture. We have to work as a nation to eradicate the belief it is part of Aboriginal culture to bash women.
Our senior Aboriginal member, Alison Anderson, acknowledges the causes of family violence are complex. Alcohol and drug abuse, for example, are likely to be major causes. The role of males in Aboriginal society has been significantly diminished. This has contributed in a major way to a breakdown and collapse of Aboriginal society and community life as it is today. The impact on Aboriginal males has been both negative and devastating. For example, chronic alcoholism, family violence, high imprisonment rate, deaths in custody, youth suicide, and antisocial behaviour are just a few negative manifestations being witnessed today. Indigenous males need support in recognising the significance of loss of self-esteem and self-respect through alienation and loss of culture and country.
It has been recognised that a revival of culture and spiritual values can provide a sense of identity and strength. The empowerment of Indigenous males is crucial to raising self-esteem, quality of life, health status, and spiritual wellbeing. Indigenous males must take leading roles to improve their own health status and that of our community. Community involvement, consultation, and providing the opportunity for Indigenous males to define and take control of issues that affect them are paramount to achieving positive and successful outcomes.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, tonight I share some stories of culture and community from the Barkly. Two Barkly restaurants dished up excellence in Territory dining four years in a row. Anna’s Restaurant at Bluestone Motel, Tennant Creek, was awarded the Gold Plate for Best Family Restaurant 2013 on Monday 14 October. The Gold Plate Awards, organised by the Australian Hotels Association NT, showcases the very best of the Territory’s dining venues, and all categories are hotly contested. ‘We were very happy to win this award. It’s a real honour’, said owner, Margaret Galway. The staff and management put in a lot of effort. Margaret’s two managers are Scott Berry and Alesha Bacon.
Previously, Fernanda's Restaurant won three Gold Plate Awards. The family-owned restaurant in Tennant Creek took out the Best Family Restaurant title in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Fernanda’s is run by Fernanda and Louis de Sousa and their son, Helio de Sousa, who is the chef.
Setting a good example for community support in Tennant Creek, local Jameson Casson is a finalist in the NT Young Australian of the Year Awards 2014 for his contributions to the community. This 28-year old is a valuable contributor to his community and Jameson’s interest in his community has not gone unnoticed. On Australia Day 2013, he was awarded the Tennant Creek Australian of the Year Junior Award for his contributions. More recently, he won the Arnold ‘Puggy’ Hunter Award for his volunteering efforts at the Stronger Futures Alice 3on3. The NT Young Australian of the Year winner will be announced on 7 November 2013.
Binge Thinking Not Drinking video wins media award: Barkly Shire Council’s Binge Thinking Not Drinking program has won the Best Station ID or Community Service Announcement Video Category of the 2013 National Remote Indigenous Media Festival Awards. Released earlier this year, Binge Thinking Not Drinking showcases music productions and performances around petrol sniffing and alcohol choices. Delivered through Commonwealth funding, the video was packaged by the Barkly Shire Council and Desert Pea Media, and showcases the amazing and creative works of the young people and community members of Alpurrurulam.
Local football players star in NTFL season debut: three Tennant Creek players have been selected to play for the Central Australian Football Club, better known as the Redtails, in the Northern Territory Football League Premier League. Local players Thomas Gillett and Andrew Baker were in the season debut on 4 October, and Andrew Baker and Farron James played the second match on 12 October. Other Barkly players could also feature in future games. The concept, developed over three years, aims to provide opportunities for young men from Central Australia to play at the highest level in the NTFL.
Tennant’s Trent takes out eightball title: Tennant Creek’s Trent Wilson took out the NT Junior Eightball Title for the under 12s during his debut performance at state-level competition at the Memorial Club in late September. The 11-year old primary school student was not the only star in his team. In the under 18s, Luke Evans secured a spot for the nationals in Melbourne, and newcomer Aiden Renfrey-Carroll won the Ben Crawley Encouragement Award.
Volunteer of the year: Keven Stout, who is Presiding Unit Officer with the Tennant Creek Northern Territory Emergency Service, has been presented with the Volunteer of the Year Award.
Tennant Creek high school student finalist in Google Doodle Contest: Denella from Barkly College in Tennant Creek is the NT finalist in the Year 9-10 group for the Doodle 4 Google competition. This year, Google invited students to create a Google doodle depicting their vision for, ‘If I was an explorer I would …’ The winning doodle will be shown on the Google homepage for a day for millions of Australians to enjoy.
Tennant trainee scoops NT award: Louise Maxwell won the coveted Trainee of the Year category in the NT Training Awards in early September. Louise, who moved to Tennant Creek in January this year, won the award after completing a traineeship in population health with the NT government. She now works for the local Sexual Assault Referral Centre.
Paul Harris Fellow award for local mum: Helen Marsh was presented with the prestigious Rotary Club Award for her tireless work in the community by the Rotary Club of Tennant Creek in July this year.
Driver education program produces first graduates: a group of 36 Indigenous participants from the Barkly completed the first stage of a driver education program in July. DriveSafe NT Remote, which is being rolled out in Tennant Creek, encourages Indigenous Territorians to gain their driver’s license by helping them with the paperwork and teaching them safe driving skills. The initiative is run by the Territory government in partnership with Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation.
Kids’ book draws on Cheeky Dog talent: Tennant’s most famous artist, Dion Beasley, has illustrated a new children’s book. Famous for his Cheeky Dog designs, Dion’s drawings were used to illustrate Too Many Cheeky Dogs, written by Katherine-based writer, Johanna Bell. Published by Allen and Unwin, the book was released in June.
Local woman appointed to advisory group: Valda Shannon, who helped develop an award winning suicide prevention program, Suicide Story, as part of her role with the Central Australian Mental Health Association was appointed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Advisory Group in June. The group provides confidential and expert advice to federal government ministers on strategic and practical ways to prevent suicide and improve the mental health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Scholarship winner in Tennant: Angeline Bill was amongst three Territory recipients of the Chief Minister’s Scholarship for Women. Angeline, who was awarded $2000 to assist with her studies in May this year, is currently working on a Certificate IV in Community Services.
New Regional Development Committee: a new regional development committee was launched in Tennant Creek in May this year by the Northern Territory government. The Tennant Creek Regional Development Committee will have direct access to all levels of government and senior levels of the bureaucracy. An internal Barkly Regional Development Working Group consisting of representatives from the Departments of Regional Development, Women’s Policy, Business, Arts and Museums and Tourism NT was also established. The role of the group is to work across the government and with the new regional development committee to develop proposals and make recommendations that will enhance the tourism profile of the Barkly Region, in particular, Nyinkka Nyunyu and Battery Hill.
Chief Minister opens regional office in Tennant Creek: Chief Minister Adam Giles officially opened the regional office of his department in Tennant Creek on 4 October. Mr Giles said the opening of the office, which will be headed by Steve Edgington as the acting Barkly Region Director, is a sign of the government’s commitment to economic development in the Barkly.
That was a highlight of some incredibly talented people, some fantastic role models in our community. Also, several acknowledgements of what the government has done in re-establishing an economic development committee in the town, which is great. The previous government initiated their own economic development committees, and they were very important. It is good to see the CLP has continued in that tradition.
I have already mentioned the Chief Minister’s office, and the Chief Minister has a commitment to economic development. Chief Minister, once again that is the incredibly creative and talented side of our community and just some of the great stories. However, the dark side is we have unacceptable rates of domestic violence. We have increasing crime with assaults in Tennant Creek, you cited that yourself. We have had a spat of property crime which refuses to abate. We need support for our women’s refuge. We need an intervention into juvenile justice, particularly in our residential bail program. We would welcome investment in regional programs for youth at risk and for juvenile offenders. We desperately need an intervention into our serious alcohol problem in Tennant Creek. We need a reinvestment in the Integrated Regional Transport Strategy. At the moment, the real pressure is on if that fantastic company, Hardy Aviation, has to withdraw its service.
Chief Minister, there are real issues now. You do not need a representative in an office on the main street of Tennant Creek to tell you about them. I am encouraging constituents to contact Steve Edgington to ensure we load his journal up with real issues for Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Chief Minister, we would like you to put your money where your mouth is. Visit us and deliver real results for the Barkly and Tennant Creek.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak about a fantastic event that occurred today, Ride2Work Day. I do not know if I will be riding home from work tonight, but Ride2Work Day is an annual Australia-wide event coordinated by the bicycle advocacy group, Bicycle Network.
The day aims to promote active, sustainable transport, and encourage new riders to take up the challenge. Staff from the Department of Transport, the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, the Department of Health and other NT government agencies rode to the community breakfast in Raintree Park on the way to work this morning, and supported the National Ride2Work Day.
Census data indicates more people per capita in the Northern Territory cycle to work than any other state or Territory. What a wonderful statistic.
Of course, we have some very good cycle paths in our major urban areas and, generally, a good climate. Cycling can be a great option for the journey to work, study or other short trip. I believe the cycle path goes all the way down to the member for Nelson’s electorate.
Mr Wood: We are trying to extend it but there is a budget problem.
Mr STYLES: When you talk about a budget problem, with a $5.5bn projected debt – sorry, member for Nelson, you probably should not have interjected.
Mr Wood: We are trying to do it ourselves. We will make it a community effort.
Mr STYLES: A community path, excellent. We will do what we can. We understand being active is good for people not only in urban areas, but people in the rural area as well. We will do whatever we can to promote people in rural areas riding to work, riding to their friend’s place, to the shops or wherever.
Ride2Work Day was a good time to highlight the importance of sharing the road. Many people do not realise cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other road users, and deserve the same respect and courtesy on our roads. Sadly, some people do not understand that. By the same token, cyclists must ensure they follow the road rules as if they were on a motorcycle or in a car. I see, from time to time, some cyclists riding through red lights because they think when they are on a bicycle they can do that. Alas, this morning, there was none of that. The Bicycle Network, a non-government organisation based in Victoria, started this some years ago and has been coordinating the National Ride2Work Day since 2007. The number of cyclists participating in Ride2Work Day continues to increase.
In the Northern Territory, cyclists have participated in the Ride2Work Day in increasing numbers in Darwin, Alice Springs, regional centres and the rural area. They sometimes struggle because they do not have as many bike paths as we do in Darwin - around East Point and the fantastic places we have, but no doubt when the government can, it will extend cycle paths in the rural area.
Major workplaces, such as Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin International Airport have participated in the Ride2Work Day in previous years. This year we had Charles Darwin University in Darwin, and the Arid Lands Environment Centre in Alice Springs, hold their Ride2Work Day followed by a community breakfast. We must thank the City of Darwin, because this year they again hosted a community breakfast to celebrate Ride2 Work Day in Raintree Park between 6.30 am and 9 am.
I want to mention some of the people who participated in this event, especially the Department of Transport staff, who did a fantastic job of coordinating a large group of people. I did not ride all the way from Sanderson - it was a bit far for me on my deadly treadly - but I joined them on the way into town. I would like to acknowledge some of the people who joined us and participated, some of whom ride into work on a regular basis. I acknowledge the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport, Clare Gardner-Barnes, myself, Jo Cruickshank, Senior Policy Advisor in Transport and Planning, Ben Mountcastle, Simon Gillam, Terri Layman, Sandy Beattie, Jenny Malone, Nicky Dare, Guy Riley and Rosalie Wiltshire.
Lycra abounded this morning; there was plenty of lycra and plenty of fluoro vests. Of course, everyone had a helmet on doing the right thing riding on footpaths and being cautious in relation to pedestrians. Everybody was responsible and dressed appropriately. It was a beautiful morning, albeit people say it is the buildup. A nice cool breeze was blowing, it was a little overcast which helped, and we finally reached the community breakfast at Raintree Park where we met Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim and a few other bike riders. It was great to see because we had probably the biggest contingent, but many groups of twos and threes came along.
The breakfast was sponsored by the City of Darwin. Beautiful smoothies were available but you had to make them yourself. Of course, there was no electricity, so how do you make a smoothie without electricity? They had a fantastic contraption which looked like a stationary exercise bike but on the front had part of a Sunbeam mixer. You bolt this onto the front, put a strap over it and then you peddle. You peddle faster and faster to make your smoothie.
It worked because I had a magnificent fruit smoothie with some healthy yoghurt in it and, after peddling to make my smoothie, was able to consume it and share some with the crowd.
It was a great bunch of people and terrific fun. I remind people that when you are out with a couple of friends on bikes, provided you are not on a racing bike trying to do 130 km down the open road, if you are cruising along on your mountain bike you can have a terrific amount of fun chatting. Of course you pay attention to what is happening around you, but it is possible to chat with your friends about a whole range of things you pass and see.
Madam Speaker, we were very grateful to the City of Darwin for hosting the breakfast. I am grateful to the people from the Department of Transport who came along. I am grateful to Gary Barnes, Chief Executive of the Chief Minister’s Department, for lending me his bike as mine was lent to a grandson and, sadly, is not in the best condition. I am grateful to all those people, and I hope this encourages people to enjoy some healthy exercise. I congratulate the Ride2Work Day people for their great work. The organisation, Bicycle Network, based in Victoria, did a great job starting it and is doing a great job promoting healthy exercise in the community.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also support the minister’s comments about bicycle riding. It is a good healthy lifestyle, and we have a great bicycle path. I prefer to call ours ‘the rail trail’. I subscribe to a magazine called Rails Trails Hopefully, one day we can have one of the greatest rail trails because we still have a corridor most of the way to Adelaide River, which would eventually connect up with the Adelaide River heritage site. Trevor Horman would like that to happen. It would be a mountain bike trail, of course. I do not think we could afford to bituminise the old trail to Adelaide River, but it is something to be aimed at anyway.
I will read into Hansard a letter I received dealing with the announcement of the NT Open Education Centre’s new facility and an interim move to Nightcliff Middle School. I received it from Vicki Proud, who is the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Open Education Centre School Council. I would like to read it because I also have some concerns about what is happening to this school. She wrote:
- Dear Minister
I am the Chairperson of the Northern Territory Open Education School. On 10 September 2013, I wrote to you in regard to a new facility for NTOEC and a lack of response from the government on this matter.
Today, I am again writing on behalf of the NTOEC School Council to express our concerns about not being involved in the decision-making process for our school’s future. I would like to remind you of your recent statement during the 2013 estimates hearing where you stated:
- I certainly will be ensuring that we negotiate correctly. I believe the first thing to do is start to consult with the Open Education School Council in order to demonstrate what we have as a vision for open education in the NT. I would like to believe that whatever happens to that facility in the future, whether it becomes part of a school or we build a new facility, we will follow a good process that achieves the best outcome for all.
Estimates hearing 25/06/2013.
- To date, we have not been consulted by the government on its vision for the future of our school. In fact, we have not even had a reply from your office re your letter dated 10 September 2013.
In my capacity as the Chair of the NTOEC School Council, I had a meeting with the department’s Chief Executive, Ken Davies, on Thursday, 19 September 2013. At that meeting I was informed by Mr Davies that the government would be announcing the building of a new facility for NTOEC the following day. He also informed me that NTOEC will be moved out of Chrisp Street to another location of equal or larger space, and that site would be Nightcliff Middle School (NMS).
This announcement contradicts the promises previously made by the government and former Chief Executive of DOE, Gary Barnes.
In December 2012, staff and council were both told NTOEC would not be moved from Chrisp Street until a new purpose-built facility was available. Clearly, this is now not the case, and at no time were we consulted on this change. Mr Davies also informed me that Essington School, already occupying a section of the top floor at Chrisp Street, would be acquiring the Chrisp Street facility after NTOEC vacates …
It has been indicated that NTOEC will be moved and relocated to NMS at the end of 2013 to commence teaching at the beginning of 2014. There is not sufficient time to finalise the school end of year processes, relocate and set up the new premises before our teachers go on six weeks recreation leave on 12 December 2013. Many students do not complete final lessons until, and possibly including, the last week. Normal reporting processes have to occur. Year 11 and Year 10 reports are not posted until the day after teachers leave for the Christmas holidays. On top of this, enrolments for 2014 and a holiday school program also need to take place.
We firmly believe that this is unrealistic and unfair to expect both teachers and administration staff to undertake the necessary clean-up and pack-up that will be required on top of their normal end of year processes by the end of the 2013 school year.
If staff are able to meet this deadline, how are they going to be ready to start teaching on the first day of school in 2014 if they are still unpacking and trying to set up their work space so they can deliver classes to students. Our students learning needs are important and these learning needs should not be impacted upon in any way by a decision to move locations within such a short time frame.
School council would like to know exactly what research or criteria were used to determine the level of service we provide now can be maintained or improved using the facilities at Nightcliff. Our early indications are that there will be insufficient space. There will be a loss of cohesive structural identity as a school, and as a significant senior secondary education provider. Staff will be situated in different sections of the building and share with an existing middle school which is not set up to be a senior secondary distance education provider. We believe this will impair the current fluid movement of students from teaching area to teaching area that exists in the Chrisp Street facility.
Noise level in open office areas will impact on NTOEC services such as phone lessons from desks. Cramped office space will also impact on the ready availability of resources as desk spaces are the teachers’ classroom. NTOEC staff work spaces fill unique needs and are not the same as those of standard government office workers, yet this is what the NMS work space requirements are based on.
The school council feel that our school community has been bulldozed and forced into an unfair situation. The council have had no opportunity to have a say about the interim move or fight for our school, and we believe that Essington knew about the possibility of our move before we did.
The council and parents of NTOEC feel that distance education has been treated as second best. School council was also annoyed the department considers this building unsuitable. It has been good enough up until now and, therefore, should remain our school premises until the purpose-built facility is completed. By moving NTOEC to Nightcliff Middle School before a new purpose-built facility is complete, the government is effectively establishing a notion that students of executives arriving from interstate, overseas, attending a private school hold a greater importance than the large number of public education students we provide for across the entire Northern Territory. It seems clear to council at this point, that only one organisation has got what they want or has been promised, Essington School.
Minister Chandler, regardless of the outcome of this letter, the council is certain of one thing: NTOEC has some of the most dedicated, hard-working, and loyal teachers and administration staff. The teachers and staff must be commended for their professionalism throughout this long-winded process. They have continued to provide our students with the services only NTOEC can provide. The parents, students and staff have been dragged backwards through a ringer over the past two-and-a-half-years, yet they continue to fight for the rights of their school community.
Since mid-last year, NTOEC School Council has unsuccessfully requested three meetings with the Minister for Education on this matter. On behalf of the NTOEC School Council, I am again requesting a face-to-face meeting with you to discuss the matters I have raised, and enable you to provide a clear picture to us as a school council on what your vision is for the future of the NTOEC.
Yours sincerely
Vicky Proud
Chairperson NTOEC School Council
The NTOEC has been there for quite a long time. In 1986, it moved to its present location in Chrisp Street, so getting on to 27 years it has been there. It is a school, if people do not know, and I will read from the NTOEC website:
- Our role is to provide senior secondary education for students unable to attend NT schools, and to extend the secondary curriculum available to students attending urban, regional and remote schools including Community Education Centres.
Some children may attend a secondary school which does not teach all subjects and they can use this important facility. Students may enrol as full-time or part-time students. They may be school aged students, or students beyond compulsory school age. NTOEC is one of the many secondary schools operated by the Department of Education. In some ways, it is different from other secondary schools but the main ingredients are the same: experienced professional teachers providing the best possible education for individual students.
You have a great school which has been operating since 1980. All of a sudden, you decide to shift it to another school after promising it would not be moved until a purpose-built facility was built. Why? The school council says Nightcliff Middle School is not suitable because of the way lessons are conducted at NTOEC. The question really is: why have you turned a promise around? You said you would not move them until a purpose-built facility was ready and now you are shoving them out to the side. It seems you want The Essington School Darwin to move to that site.
I would love to know what agreement was made with The Essington School Darwin before the election. Was there an agreement made to shift NTOEC from the building and Essington would take it over? I would also be interested in the financial implications of that agreement. NTOEC should not be disadvantaged. By moving them to Nightcliff Middle School they are. The minister should stop and ensure they are not shifted until a purpose-built facility is available. Thank you.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to talk about a couple of events in my electorate. I will start with the East Arnhem Under 15s Aussie Rules Carnival held in Nhulunbuy over the weekend of 12 and 13 October. The major sponsor was Miwatj, and the teams were competing for the Miwatj Cup. They were also incredibly well supported by AFLNT, as they do in our remote regions. There were four teams in the competition. A team arrived from Groote Eylandt, and a team from Gapuwiyak. The Groote Eylandt team had to fly in. Gapuwiyak is a two-and-a-half hour drive down the road, so that team drove up. Elcho Island, or the Galiwinku kids had to fly in, and the closest, the home team of Yirrkala, is just a 20-minute drive down the road.
The event had been planned for some time and I understand the driving force behind it was probably Mick Montague who runs the AFLNT Development Program at Gapuwiyak and does an incredible job. Mick successfully got the Gapuwiyak senior team into the GEFL competition this year so it was a natural progression to see the young under 15s team from Gapuwiyak participate in the carnival over the weekend. Well done to Mick Montague. Robbie Williams is the AFLNT Development Officer from Groote Eylandt who accompanied the team.
Tavis Perry was there. I missed Tavis on the Saturday, but I have known Tavis since he was AFLNT officer at Galiwinku. Tayo Caferalla is now the AFLNT Development Officer at Galiwinku. He brought a couple of charters across with the young fellows on board. Hamish Simpson has had a long involvement with AFLNT and for the last couple of years has been one of the directors of the Clontarf Academy at Yirrkala. He does an amazing job as AFLNT Development Officer, as well as instilling that love of Aussie Rules and sport.
Michael Horgan came from Gapuwiyak as did Ziggy. Forgive me, I do not have Ziggy’s last name, but he accompanied the Gapuwiyak team. Kevin Bird was there throughout the weekend. Kevin does an amazing job in his sport and recreation role with Miwatj Aboriginal Health Corporation.
Jen Ryan and Dave Brumby were there for most of the weekend. Jen and Dave are both homelands teachers. Over the weekend Jen picked up some of the homelands kids and drove them in in a Troopie. At the conclusion of the weekend Dave Brumby drove the kids back. They were hoping to field a homelands team but they did not have a sufficient number of children. That did not matter; the boys did not miss out on a game as they were slotted into other teams. Indeed, there was a bit of swapping of players between teams to ensure everybody had a go.
From what I saw there were some really close games with one and two points the difference, and a great sense of sportsmanship. Kids who were not playing at any given time would be running water bottles out. When the grand final was held on Sunday, the Yirrkala Dockers played the Galiwinku Giants. The Galiwinku Giants appeared favourites throughout the two day carnival, but they got pipped at the post in the grand final and it was disappointing for those young fellows. Part of being in sport and being a sportsman is learning to cope with the loss and accept you do not always win. Gee whiz, as runners up they did extremely well.
It was not just about playing football, for three of these teams it was a treat to come into the larger town of Nhulunbuy. They all camped at the Cat Shed which neighbours Hindle Oval. They enjoyed the opportunity to not only visit some of the shops in Nhulunbuy, but to go to the town pool for a swim. Kids at Elcho Island do not have a swimming pool, as much as I would love to see one there and have lobbied in the past. There was friendship and sharing amongst these kids. They were also teaching each other language from their community. All in all, it was a really successful and special event.
Our local newspaper, the Arafura Times ran a full page in today’s paper. Tavis Perry sent me a copy and I seek leave to table this clipping.
Leave granted.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to quote a few things which give a background to this carnival, the first one acknowledging the carnival:
- The carnival which was sponsored by Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation was also held as a way for AFLNT officials to identify remote talent and select some players to play in a Territory-wide side.
The players picked for the Territory side in a program called Kick Start then have the opportunity to be selected for national Indigenous under age side the Flying Boomerangs.
They were happy to be out there playing football, but it was also an opportunity to be on a pathway to further competition within the Territory.
Robbie Williams from Groote Eylandt summed up, from his perspective – he was interviewed in our local paper about what the boys were getting out of this competition and I read:
- Robbie Williams said although it was a huge logistical effort to organise the kids for events like this, the benefits could be seen in many aspects of their lives from health to the classroom. Things like this are a big driving force for kids to attend school and be well-behaved. When something like this is coming up they are always working towards being involved, and when they are playing footy and they can see they are good at it then they will be less likely to muck up in school as they know they are having something there they are good at.
To be part of the carnival, students from all the communities had to have kept in line with a number of behavioural criteria, including keeping up school attendance. At the end of the competition all the kids were congratulated for their good sportsmanship and where praised for their high level of football skills.
Well done to everybody involved with the carnival. I hope to see those young fellows move up through the ranks and into the senior teams in future years in the GAFL competition.
Mick Montague circulated an e-mail with a couple of photos and a quick message yesterday. I quite like his comments:
- I thought the weekend was summed up well when the Groote team left for the airport and the Elcho boys came out and gave them handshakes, hugs and a sendoff.
I thought that was pretty special and, obviously, some friendships were made.
Madam Speaker, I also wish to advise the House of a special and noteworthy event which occurred in Nhulunbuy when the townspeople rallied to support Relay For Life held in August. The people of Nhulunbuy are incredibly generous. There were 25 teams participating and all supported by family, friends, workmates and the wider community generally. The teams managed to raise, collectively, $75 000. That is a significant sum of money for a community the size of the Gove region. Every cent of this money will go towards cancer research.
Obviously, to raise a massive sum of money means a massive effort was required by all involved. It had to be spearheaded by a committee, and the driving force behind this event was, once again, Fiona Pearce, who has worked tirelessly to coordinate this event, not for the first time. I believe it was the third time Relay For Life had been held in Nhulunbuy. It tends to occur every second year. Of course, on the coordinating committee with Fiona was Wendy Troe, Jenny Priest, Sally Putland and Fiona Stimpson. They are a terrific bunch of women, hard workers, good sense of humour, and they spent months planning and organising. It was no small feat. These women all have full-time jobs and families, and are involved in a number of other committees within our local community. Hats off to them!
The relay commenced at 2 pm on Saturday afternoon, 17 August, and the first lap was completed by cancer survivors and carers. Teams continued the relay throughout the night until the closing ceremony at 8 am the next day. There was a phenomenal turnout of walkers and campers, many decorated in theme, along with some catering stalls which presented fundraising opportunities. There was plenty of great music to walk to throughout the event, thanks to Gove FM, as well as a couple of very talented bands from amongst Nhulunbuy’s young people who played to entertain the crowd.
For people who have never been to an event, the formal ceremonies of candle lighting at the table for one, and the lighting of lanterns around the track dedicated to loved ones lost to cancer, is very moving and very teary to witness. During the ceremonies beautiful live music was provided by Tim Webb and Alicia Scobie. Also, Mark Keogh played songs, having lost his dad to cancer in April this year. Rachel Blundell gave a very stirring rendition of Wind Beneath My Wings.
So, too, was the very poignant speech from Wendy Troe, who had the honour to pay tribute to all the people our community has lost to cancer over the years. It was quite a feat to get that list of people who had been part of our community together. There was barely a dry eye at the conclusion of Wendy’s speech and the ceremonies which followed.
The event cannot happen without the incredible support of some very special people and organisations. Thank you to Rotary, which provided a cooked breakfast on the morning, following a long night of walking, and the surf club and its army of volunteers who ran the bar and drinks stall. Gove FM I mentioned, and their volunteers included Michael Stimpson and Rod Stewart. I am most apologetic if I have left someone off the list from Gove FM. I also acknowledge the role the NT Cancer Council plays.
Madam Speaker, there are many things I love about the place that is Nhulunbuy and my home for 23 years. This event, Relay For Life, is a reminder of why. I know I am not alone in that sentiment.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016